RULE 74- SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES administration and the appointment of an

administrator are superfluous and unnecessary

1. UTULO V. PASION VDA. DE GARCIA, 66 PHIL proceedings (Ilustre vs. Alaras Frondosa, 17 Phil.,
303 321; Malahacan vs. Ignacio, 19 Phil., 434;
Bondad vs. Bondad, 34 Phil., 232; Baldemor vs.
[G.R. No. 45904. September 30, 1938.] Malangyaon, 34 Phil., 367; Fule vs. Fule, 46 Phil.,
317).

Intestate estate of the deceased 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — There is
Luz Garcia. PABLO no weight in the argument adduced by the appellee
G. UTULO, applicant-appellee, vs. to the effect that his appointment as judicial
LEONA PASION VIUDA DE GARCIA administrator is necessary so that he may have legal
, oppositor-appellant. capacity to appear in the intestate of the deceased J.
G. S. As he would appear in the said intestate by the
right of representation, it would suffice for him to
Feliciano B. Gardiner, for appellant. allege in proof of his interest that he is a
usufructuary forced heir of his deceased wife who, in
Gerardo S. Limliñgan, for appellee. turn, would be a forced heir and an interested and
necessary party if she were living. In order to
intervene in said intestate and to take part in the
SYLLABUS distribution of the property it is not necessary that
the administration of the property of his deceased
wife be instituted — an administration which will take
1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS;
up time and occasion inconveniences and
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE OF
unnecessary expenses.
DECEASED PERSON; EXCEPTIONS. — Section
642 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in part
that "if no executor is named in the will, or if a person
dies intestate, administration shall be granted" etc. DECISION
This provision enunciates the general rule that when
a person dies leaving property in the Philippines
Islands, his property should be judicially
administered and the competent court should IMPERIAL, J p:
appoint a qualified administrator, in the order
established in the section, in case the deceased left This is an appeal taken by the oppositor
no will, or in case he had left one should he fail to from the order of the Court of First Instance of the
name an executor therein. This rule, however, is Province of Tarlac appointing the applicant as
subject to the exceptions established by sections judicial administrator of the property left by the
596 and 597 of the same Code, as finally amended. deceased Luz Garcia.
According to the first, when all the heirs are of lawful
Juan Garcia Sanchez died intestate, and in
age and there are no debts due from the estate, they
the proceedings instituted in the Court of First
may agree in writing to partition the property without
Instance of Tarlac for the administration of his
instituting the judicial administration or applying for
property (special proceedings No. 3475),
the appointment of an administrator. According to
Leona Pasion Vda. de Garcia, the surviving spouse
the second, if the property left does not exceed six
and the herein oppositor, was appointed judicial
thousand pesos,, the heirs may apply to the
administratrix. The said deceased left legitimate
competent court, after the required publications, to
children, named Juan Garcia, jr.,
proceed with the summary partition and, after paying
Patrocinio Garcia and Luz Garcia who, with the
all the known obligations, to partition all the property
widow, are the presumptive forced heirs.
constituting the inheritance among themselves
Luz Garcia married the applicant Pablo G. Utulo and
pursuant to law, without instituting the judicial
during the pendency of the administration
administration and the appointment of an
proceedings of the said deceased, she died in the
administrator.
said province without any legitimate descendants,
2. ID.; ID.; ID. — When a person dies her only forced heirs being her mother and her
without leaving pending obligations to be paid, his husband. The latter commenced in the same court
heirs, whether of age or not, are not bound to submit the judicial administration of the property of his
the property to a judicial administration, which is deceased wife (special proceedings NO. 4188),
always long and costly, or to apply for the stating in his petition that her only heirs were he
appointment of an administrator by the court. It has himself and his mother-in-law, the oppositor, and
been uniformly held that in such case the judicial that the only property, left by the deceased consisted

1
in the share due her from the intestate of her father, always long and costly, or to apply for the
Juan Garcia Sanchez, and asking that he be named appointment of an administrator by the court. It has
administrator of the property of said deceased. The been uniformly held that in such case the judicial
oppositor objected to the petition, opposing the administration and the appointment of an
judicial administration of the property of her daughter administrator are superfluous and unnecessary
and the appointment of the applicant as proceedings (Ilustre vs. Alaras Frondosa, 17 Phil.,
administrator. She alleged that inasmuch as the said 321; Malahacan vs. Ignacio, 19 Phil., 434;
deceased left no indebtedness, there was no Bondad vs. Bondad, 32 Phil., 232; Baldemor vs.
occasion for the said judicial administration; but she Malangyaon, 32 Phil., 367; Fule vs. Fule, 46 Phil.,
stated that should the court grant the administration 317).
of the property, she should be appointed the In enunciating the aforesaid doctrine, this
administratrix thereof inasmuch as she had a better court relied on the provisions of articles 657, 659
right than the applicant. After the required and 661 of the Civil Code under which the heirs
publications, trial was had and the court, on August succeed to all the property left by the deceased from
28, 1936, finally issued the appealed order to which the time of his death. In the case of Ilustre vs. Alaras
the oppositor excepted and thereafter filed the Frondosa, supra, it was said:
record on appeal which was certified and approved.
"Under the provisions of the
The oppositor-appellant assigns five errors Civil Code (arts. 657 to 661), the rights
allegedly committed by the trial court, but these to the succession of a person are
assigned errors raised only two questions for transmitted from the moment of his
resolution, namely: whether upon the admitted facts death; in other words, the heirs
the judicial administration of the property left by the succeeded immediately to all of the
deceased Luz Garcia lies, with the consequent property of the deceased ancestor.
appointment of an administrator, and whether the The property belongs to the heirs as
appellant has a better right to the said office than the the moment of the death of the
appellee. ancestor as completely as if the
1. As to the first question, we have section ancestor had executed and delivered
642 of the Code of Civil Procedure providing in part to them a deed for the same before
that "if no executor is named in the will, or if a person his death. In the absence of debts
dies intestate, administration shall be granted" etc. existing against the estate, the heirs
This provision enunciates the general rule that when may enter upon the administration of
a person dies leaving property in the Philippine the said property immediately. If they
Islands, his property should be judicially desire to administer it jointly, they may
administered and the competent court should do so. If they desire to partition it
appoint a qualified administrator, in the order among themselves and can do this by
established in the section, in case the deceased left mutual agreement, they also have that
no will, or in case he had left one should he fail to privilege. The Code of Procedure in
name an executor therein. This rule, however, is Civil Actions provides how an estate
subject to the exceptions established by sections may be divided by a petition for
596 and 597 of the same Code, as finally amended. partition in case they can not mutually
According to the first, when all the heirs are of lawful agree in the division. When there are
age and there are no debts due from the estate, they no debts existing against the estate, is
may agree in writing to partition the property without certainly no occasion for the
instituting the judicial administration or applying for intervention of an administrator in the
the appointment of an administrator. According to settlement and partition of the estate
the second, if the property left does not exceed six among the heirs. When the heirs are
thousand pesos, the heirs may apply to the all of lawful age and there are no
competent court, after the required publications, to debts, there is no reason why the
proceed with the summary partition and, after paying estate should be burdened with the
all the known obligations, to partition all the property costs and expenses of an
constituting the inheritance among themselves administrator. The property belonging
pursuant to law, without instituting the judicial absolutely to the heirs, in the absence
administration and the appointment of an of existing debts against the estate,
administrator. the administrator has no right to
intervene in any way whatever in the
Construing the scope of section 596, this
division of the estate among the heirs.
court repeatedly held that when a person dies
They are coöwners of an undivided
without leaving pending obligations to be paid, his
estate and the law offers them a
heirs, whether of age or not, are not bound to submit
remedy for the division of the same
the property to a judicial administration, which is
2
 among themselves. There is nothing property of the deceased ancestor.
in the present case to show that the The property belongs to the heirs at
heirs requested the appointment of the the moment of the death of the
administrator, or that they intervened ancestor as completely as if the
in any way whatever in the present ancestor had executed and delivered
action. If there are any heirs of the to them a deed for the same before
estate who have not received their his death. In the absence of debts
participation, they have their remedy existing against the estate, the heirs
by petition for partition of the said may enter upon the administration of
estate." the said property immediately. If they
desire to administer it jointly, they may
In the cases of Malahacan vs.
do so. If they desire to partition it
Ignacio, supra, Bondad vs. Bondad, supra, and
among themselves and can do this by
Baldemor vs. Malangyaon, supra, the same doctrine
mutual agreement, they also have that
was reiterated. and in the case of Fule vs.
privilege. The Code of Procedure in
Fule, supra, this court amplified and ratified the
Civil Actions provides how an estate
same doctrine in the following language:
may be divided by a petition for
"Upon the second question — partition in case they cannot mutually
Did the court a quo commit an error in agree in the division.' (Sections 182-
refusing to appoint an administrator for 184, 196, and 596 of Act No. 190.)
the estate of Saturnino Fule? — it may
"When the heirs are all of
be said (a) that it is admitted by all of
lawful age and there are no debts
the parties to the present action, that
there is no reason why the estate
at the time of his death no debts
should be burdened with the cost and
existed against his estate and (b) that
expenses of an administrator. The
all of the heirs of Saturnino Fule were
administrator has no right to intervene
of age.
in any way whatsoever in the division
"In this jurisdiction and by of the estate among the heirs when
virtue of the provisions of articles 657, they are adults and when there are no
659 and 661 of the Civil Code, all of debts against the estate. (Ilustre vs.
the property, real and personal, of a Alaras Frondosa, supra; Bondad vs.
deceased person who dies intestate, Bondad, supra; Baldemor vs.
is transmitted immediately to his heirs. Malangyaon, supra.)
(To Guioc-Co vs. Del Rosario, 8 Phil.,
"When there are no debts and
546; Ilustre vs. Alaras Frondosa, 17
the heirs are all adults, their relation to
Phil., 321; Marin vs. Nacianceno, 19
the property left by their ancestor is
Phil., 238; Malahacan vs. Ignacio, 19
the same as that of any other
Phil., 434; Nable Jose vs. Uson, 27
coöwners or owners in common, and
Phil., 73; Bondad vs. Bondad, 34 Phil.,
they may recover their individual
232; Baldemor vs. Malangyaon, 34
rights, the same as any other
Phil., 367.)
coöwners of undivided party.
"If then the property of the (Succession of Story, 3 La Ann., 502;
deceased, who dies intestate, passes McIntyre vs. Chappell, 4 Tex., 187;
immediately to his heirs, as owners, wood et. ux. Ford, 29 Miss., 57.)
and there are no debts, what reason
xxx xxx xxx
can there be for the appointment of a
judicial administrator to administer the "The right of the heirs in cases
estate for them and to deprive the real like the one we are discussing, also
owners of their possession to which exists in the division of personal as
they are immediately entitled? In the well as the real property. If they
case of Bondad vs. Bondad (34 Phil., cannot agree as to the division, then a
232), Chief Justice Cayetano suit for partition of such personal
Arrellano, discussing this question, property among the heirs of the
said: 'Under the provisions of the Civil deceased owner is maintainable
Code (articles 657 to 661), the rights where the estate is not in debt, the
to the succession of a person are heirs are all of age, and there is no
transmitted from the moment of his administration upon the estate and no
death; in other words, the heirs necessity thereof. (Jordan vs. Jordan,
succeed immediately to all of the 4 Tex. Civ. App. Rep., 559.)
3
 "It is difficult to conceive of
any one class or item of property
susceptible of being held in common
which may not be divided by the
coöwners. It may be of personal
property as well as of real estate; of
several parcels as well as of a single
parcel, and of non-contiguous as well
as of adjacent tracts; or of part only of
the lands of the coöwners as well as
of the whole. (Pickering vs. Moore, 67
N. H., 533; 31 L. R. A., 698; Pipes vs.
Buckner, 51 Miss., 848; Tewksbury vs.
Provizzo, 12 Cal., 20.)"
We conceive of no powerful reason which
counsels the abandonment of a doctrine so
uniformly applied. We are convinced that if the
courts had followed it in all cases to which it has
application, their files would no t have been replete
with unnecessary administration proceedings as
they are now. There is no weight in the argument
adduced by the appellee to the effect that his
appointment as judicial administrator is necessary so
that he may have legal capacity to appear in the
intestate of the deceased Juan Garcia Sanchez. As
he would appear in the said intestate by the right of
representation, it would suffice for him to allege in
proof of his interest that he is a usufructuary forced
heir of his deceased wife who, in turn, would be a
forced heir and an interested and necessary party if
she were living. In order to intervene in said intestate
and to take part in the distribution of the property it is
not necessary that the administration of the property
of his deceased wife be instituted — an
administration which will take up time and occasion
inconveniences and unnecessary expenses.
2. In view of the foregoing, there is no need
to determine which of the parties has preferential
right to the office of administrator.
The appealed order should be reversed,
with the costs of this instance to the applicant-
appellee. So ordered.
||| (Utulo v. Vda. de Garcia, G.R. No. 45904, [September
30, 1938], 66 PHIL 302-310)

4
 This certificate also indicated that Gregorio had
never been previously married to a certain Sitjar
2. JESUSA DUJALI BUOT V. ROQUE RASAY Escalona. Thus, as Buot failed to prove that she is
DUJALI, GR 199885, 10/2/17 an heir, Dujali prayed that her petition be dismissed
outright.
[G.R. No. 199885. October 2, 2017.] Buot filed her comment 10 to Dujali's
opposition with motion to dismiss. She argued that
JESUSA DUJALI under the Rules of Court, only ultimate facts should
BUOT, petitioner, vs. ROQUE be included in an initiatory pleading. The marriage
RASAY DUJALI, respondent. certificate and certificate of live birth which Dujali
demands are evidentiary matters that ought to be
tackled during trial. Nevertheless, to answer Dujali's
allegations, Buot attached to her comment a copy of
DECISION the necrological services program 11 where she was
listed as one of Gregorio's heirs, a
certification 12 from the municipal mayor that she is
Gregorio's child, and a copy of the Amended
JARDELEZA, J p: Extrajudicial Settlement 13 dated July 4, 2001 which
includes both Buot and Dujali as Gregorio's heirs.
This is a petition for review Notably, this Amended Extrajudicial Settlement
on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. pertained to parcels of land not included in the list of
Petitioner Jesusa Dujali Buot (Buot) challenged the properties annexed in Buot's petition.
Orders of Branch 34 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Panabo City, dated September 19, On May 3, 2011, the RTC denied Dujali's
2011 2 and December 8, 2011, 3 dismissing her motion to dismiss. It agreed with Buot that the issues
petition and denying her subsequent motion for raised by Dujali are evidentiary matters that should
reconsideration, respectively. be addressed during trial. 14

Buot filed before the RTC a petition 4 for Dujali filed a motion for
letters of administration of the estate of deceased reconsideration. 15 He argued that under the Rules
Gregorio Dujali (Gregorio). In her petition, Buot of Court and prevailing jurisprudence, a party's lack
alleged that she was a surviving heir, along with of legal capacity to sue should be raised in a motion
Roque Dujali, Constancia Dujali-Tiongson, to dismiss. Further, he took issue with the existence
Concepcion Dujali-Satiembre, Marilou Sales-Dujali, of the Amended Extrajudicial Settlement. According
Marietonete Dujali, Georgeton Dujali, Jr. and to him, when an estate has no debts, recourse to
Geomar Dujali, of Gregorio who died administration proceedings is allowed only when
intestate. 5 Buot annexed 6 to her petition a list of there are good and compelling reasons. Where an
Gregorio's properties that are allegedly publicly action for partition (whether in or out of court) is
known. She claimed that since Gregorio's death, possible, the estate should not be burdened with an
there had been no effort to settle his estate. Roque administration proceeding.
Dujali (Dujali) purportedly continued to manage and The RTC, in its Order dated September 19,
control the properties to the exclusion of all the other 2011, granted Dujali's motion for reconsideration. It
heirs. Buot further alleged that Dujali for no held that under the law, there are only two
justifiable reason denied her request to settle the exceptions to the requirement that the settlement of
estate. 7 Thus, Buot asked that: (1) an administrator a deceased's estate should be judicially
be appointed to preserve Gregorio's estate; (2) a administered — extrajudicial settlement and
final inventory of the properties be made; (3) the summary settlement of an estate of small
heirs be established; and (4) the net estate be value. 16 According to the RTC, in the case of Buot's
ordered distributed in accordance with law among petition, administration has been barred by the fact
the legal heirs. 8 that Gregorio's estate has already been settled
Dujali filed an opposition with motion to extrajudicially as evidenced by the Amended
dismiss, 9 arguing that Buot had no legal capacity to Extrajudicial Settlement. It also noted that Gregorio
institute the proceedings. He asserted that despite had no creditors since Buot failed to allege it in her
Buot's claim that she was Gregorio's child with his petition. 17 Since recourse to judicial administration
first wife Sitjar Escalona, she failed to attach any of an estate that has no debt is allowed only when
document, such as a certificate of live birth or a there are good reasons for not resorting to
marriage certificate, to prove her filiation. Dujali, on extrajudicial settlement or action for partition, the
the other hand, attached a certificate of marriage RTC dismissed Buot's petition. Buot filed a motion
between Gregorio and his mother Yolanda Rasay. for reconsideration which the RTC denied in its
Order dated December 8, 2011. According to the
5
RTC, not only was Buot's motion a second motion First, we must emphasize that this is a
for reconsideration prohibited under the Rules, there petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
was also no sufficient reason to reverse its earlier the Rules of Court. This recourse to the Court covers
dismissal of the petition. 18 only a review of questions of law. In this case, the
question of law presented before us is whether the
Buot filed this petition for review
RTC properly dismissed the petition for
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
administration on the ground that there has already
Court challenging the RTC's Orders on pure
been an extrajudicial settlement of certain properties
questions of law. In her petition, Buot argues that her
of the estate. An additional question of procedure
motion for reconsideration is not a prohibited second
raised here is whether the RTC was correct in
motion for reconsideration. Section 2 of Rule 52 of
holding that Buot's motion for reconsideration should
the Rules of Court states that a prohibited second
be denied as it is a prohibited second motion for
motion for reconsideration is one filed by
reconsideration.
the same party. In this case, Buot's motion for
reconsideration was her first, since the motion for All other issues raised in the pleadings
reconsideration subject of the Order dated before us are questions of fact that we cannot
September 19, 2011 was filed by Dujali. She also resolve at this time. As we shall shortly explain in
argued that the Amended Extrajudicial Settlement this Decision, these questions of fact ought to be
did not cover all of Gregorio's properties. 19 resolved by a trial court in the appropriate
proceeding.
Further, Buot maintains that heirs are not
precluded from instituting a petition for We will first rule on the procedural issue
administration if they do not, for good reason, wish raised in the petition. In its Order dated September
to pursue an ordinary action for partition. In her 19, 2011, the RTC held that Buot's motion for
case, she claims that there are good reasons reconsideration is a second motion for
justifying her recourse to administration proceedings: reconsideration prohibited under the Rules of Court.
(1) the Amended Extrajudicial Settlement did not Thus, the motion was denied. We reviewed the
cover the entire estate; (2) there has been no effort motions filed by the parties before the RTC and rule
to partition the property; (3) Dujali seeks to challenge that the RTC erred in its finding.
Buot's status as an heir; (4) other heirs have been
When Buot filed her petition for
deprived of the properties of the estate; and (5) other
administration, Dujali filed an opposition with a
heirs, particularly Constancia Dujali and Marilou
motion to dismiss. When the RTC denied his motion
Dujali, have already manifested that they are
to dismiss, Dujali filed a motion for reconsideration.
amenable to the appointment of an administrator. 20
This led to the RTC's issuance of the Order of
In his comment, 21 Dujali argues that Buot September 19, 2011 granting Dujali's motion for
is not an interested person allowed to file a petition reconsideration and holding that Buot's petition for
for administration of the estate. While she claims to administration should be dismissed. It was only at
be Gregorio's heir, public documents, such as Buot's this point that Buot filed, for the first time, a motion
certificate of live birth and the certificate of marriage seeking for reconsideration of the Order which
between Gregorio and Yolanda Rasay, reveal declared the dismissal of her petition for
otherwise. Dujali also attached to his comment administration. Clearly, this is not the motion for
certain documents that appear to show that there reconsideration contemplated in Section 2 of Rule
has been an extrajudicial settlement of some of the 52 of the Rules of Court which states:
properties of the estate and that Buot has already
Sec. 2. Second motion for
received her share from the proceeds of the sale of
reconsideration. — No second
these properties by the true heirs. 22 Further, he
motion for reconsideration of a
explains that Buot was only allowed to participate in
judgment or final resolution by the
the Amended Extrajudicial Settlement by Gregorio's
same party shall be entertained.
legitimate heirs out of humanitarian considerations,
not because she is a true heir. All these, Dujali Section 2 of Rule 52 is clear and leaves no
argues, clearly indicate that there is no good and room for interpretation. What it prohibits is a second
compelling reason to grant Buot's petition for motion for reconsideration filed by the same party
administration. 23 involving the same judgment or final resolution. In
the present case, Buot's motion for reconsideration
In her reply, 24 Buot contends that the issue
was only her first motion challenging the Order
of whether she is a person interested in the estate is
dismissing her petition for administration of
a matter that should be raised during the trial by the
Gregorio's estate. The RTC clearly erred in denying
RTC of her petition for administration.
her motion on the ground that it is a second motion
We deny the petition. for reconsideration prohibited under the Rules.

6
 Nevertheless, we rule that the RTC properly binding upon any person who has
ordered the dismissal of Buot's petition for not participated therein or had no
administration. notice thereof.
When a person dies intestate, his or her According to this provision, when the
estate may generally be subject to judicial deceased left no will and no debts and the heirs are
administration proceedings. 25 There are, however, all of age, the heirs may divide the estate among
several exceptions. One such exception is provided themselves without judicial administration. The heirs
for in Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. This may do so extrajudicially through a public instrument
Section states: filed in the office of the Register of Deeds. In case of
disagreement, they also have the option to file an
Sec. 1. Extrajudicial
action for partition.
settlement by agreement between
heirs. — If the decedent left no will Section 1 of Rule 74, however, does not
and no debts and the heirs are all of prevent the heirs from instituting administration
age, or the minors are represented proceedings if they have good reasons for choosing
by their judicial or legal not to file an action for partition. In Rodriguez, et al.
representatives duly authorized for v. Tan, etc. and Rodriguez, 26 we said:
the purpose, the parties may,
[S]ection 1 [of Rule 74] does not
without securing letters of
preclude the heirs from instituting
administration, divide the estate
administration proceedings, even if
among themselves as they see fit by
the estate has no debts or
means of a public instrument filed in
obligation, if they do not desire to
the office of the register of deeds,
resort for good reasons to an
and should they disagree, they may
ordinary action of partition. While
do so in an ordinary action of
section 1 allows the heirs to divide
partition. If there is only one heir, he
the estate among themselves as
may adjudicate to himself the entire
they may see fit, or to resort to an
estate by means of an affidavit filed
ordinary action of partition, it does
in the office of the register of deeds.
not compel them to do so if they
The parties to an extrajudicial
have good reasons to take a
settlement, whether by public
different course of action. Said
instrument or by stipulation in a
section is not mandatory or
pending action for partition, or the
compulsory as may be gleaned from
sole heir who adjudicates the entire
the use made therein of the
estate to himself by means of an
word may. If the intention were
affidavit shall file, simultaneously
otherwise the framer of the rule
with and as a condition precedent to
would have employed the
the filing of the public instrument, or
word shall as was done in other
stipulation in the action for partition,
provisions that are mandatory in
or of the affidavit in the office of the
character. x x x 27 (Italics in the
register of deeds, a bond with the
original.)
said register of deeds, in an amount
equivalent to the value of the Since such proceedings are always "long,"
personal property involved as "costly," "superfluous and unnecessary," 28 resort to
certified to under oath by the parties judicial administration of cases falling under Section
concerned and conditioned upon the 1, Rule 74 appears to have become the exception
payment of any just claim that may rather than the rule. Cases subsequent
be filed under Section 4 of this rule. to Rodriguez emphasized that "[w]here partition is
It shall be presumed that the possible, either in or out of court, the estate should
decedent left no debts if no creditor not be burdened with an administration proceeding
files a petition for letters of without good and compelling reasons." 29
administration within two (2) years
In Pereira v. Court of Appeals, 30 we had
after the death of the decedent.
the opportunity to explain what the "good reason
The fact of the extrajudicial exception" means. What constitutes good reason
settlement or administration shall be depends on the circumstances of each case. We
published in a newspaper of general said:
circulation in the manner provided in
"Again the petitioner argues
the next succeeding section; but no
that 'only when the heirs do not
extrajudicial settlement shall be
have any dispute as to the bulk of
7
 the hereditary estate but only in the entire estate is, by no means, a sufficient reason to
manner of partition does section 1, order the administration of the estate. Whether the
Rule 74 of the Rules of Court apply extrajudicial settlement did in fact cover the entire
and that in this case the parties are estate and whether an extrajudicial settlement that
at loggerheads as to the corpus of does not cover the entire estate may be considered
the hereditary estate because valid do not automatically create a compelling
respondents succeeded in reason to order the administration of the estate.
sequestering some assets of the Parties seeking to challenge an extrajudicial
intestate. The argument is settlement of estate possess sufficient remedies
unconvincing, because, as the under the law and procedural rules.
respondent judge has indicated,
As to Buot's other allegations that: (1) there
questions as to what property
has been no effort to partition the estate; (2) that
belonged to the deceased (and
Dujali challenges her status as an heir; (3) that other
therefore to the heirs) may properly
heirs have been deprived of the estate; and (4)
be ventilated in the partition
these heirs are amenable to the appointment of an
proceedings, especially where such
administrator, we find that none of these allegations
property is in the hands of one heir."
actually prevent the filing of an ordinary action for
In another case, We held partition. In fact, if it is indeed true that there has
that if the reason for seeking an been no effort to partition Gregorio's entire estate,
appointment as administrator is the filing of an action for partition before the proper
merely to avoid a multiplicity of suits court will leave his heirs with no choice but to
since the heir seeking such proceed. An action for partition is also the proper
appointment wants to ask for the venue to ascertain Buot's entitlement to participate in
annulment of certain transfers of the proceedings as an heir. 33 Not only would it
property, that same objective could allow for the full ventilation of the issues as to the
be achieved in an action for partition properties that ought to be included in the partition
and the trial court is not justified in and the true heirs entitled to receive their portions of
issuing letters of administration. In the estate, it is also the appropriate forum to litigate
still another case, We did not find so questions of fact that may be necessary to ascertain
powerful a reason the argument that if partition is proper and who may participate in the
the appointment of the husband, a proceedings.
usufructuary forced heir of his
WHEREFORE, this petition for review
deceased wife, as judicial
on certiorari is DENIED. The Orders of Branch 34 of
administrator is necessary in order
the Regional Trial Court, Panabo City, dated
for him to have legal capacity to
September 19, 2011 and December 8, 2011
appear in the intestate proceedings
are AFFIRMED insofar as they ordered the
of his wife's deceased mother, since
dismissal of the petition for letters of administration.
he may just adduce proof of his
being a forced heir in 2 intestate SO ORDERED.
proceedings of the
||| (Buot v. Dujali, G.R. No. 199885, [October 2, 2017],
latter. 31 (Citations omitted.)
819 PHIL 74-85)
Thus, in Pereira, we refused to allow
administration proceedings where the only reason
why the appointment of an administrator was sought
so that one heir can take possession of the estate
from the other heir. We held that this was not a
compelling reason to order judicial administration.
We added that in cases like this, "the claims of both
parties as to the properties left by the deceased may
be properly ventilated in simple partition proceedings
where the creditors, should there be any, are
protected in any event." 32
We have reviewed the reasons which Buot
proffers to warrant the grant of her petition for letters
of administration and rule that these do not suffice to
warrant the submission of Gregorio's estate to
administration proceedings. That the extrajudicial
settlement in this case did not cover Gregorio's

8
 of Lot 9217, Cad. 195, Laoag
Cadastre, L.R.C. Rec. No.
3. HRS. ERNESTO MORALES V. ASTRID 1212),situated at Brgy. Sto. Tomas,
MORALES AGUSTIN, ET. AL., GR 224849, 6/18/18 City of Laoag, Prov. of Ilocos Norte,
Island of Luzon. Bounded on the
[G.R. No. 224849. June 6, 2018.] SE.,along line 1-2 by A.M. Regidor
St. (8.00 m.w.);on the SW.,along
line 2-3 by Provincial Road (15.00
HEIRS OF ERNESTO MORALES, m.w.);on the NW.,along line 3-4 by
namely: ROSARIO M. DANGSALAN, Lot 9217-B of the subd. plan; on the
EVELYN M. SANGALANG, NENITA NE.,along line 4-1 by Lot 9218, Cad.
M. SALES, ERNESTO JOSE 195, Laoag Cadastre. Beginning at
MORALES, JR.,RAYMOND a point marked "1" of Lot 9217-A on
MORALES, and MELANIE plan, being N. 51 deg. 18' E.,154.84
MORALES,petitioners, vs. ASTRID m. from BLIM No. 2, Cad. 195,
MORALES AGUSTIN, represented Laoag Cadastre. 5
by her Attorney-in-fact, EDGARDO
TORRES,respondent. The respondent initiated the instant
complaint, originally together with Lydia
Morales, 6 another one of Jayme's grandchildren
and the respondent's cousin, for the partition of
DECISION Jayme's property. They alleged that they, together
with the petitioners and their other cousins, were co-
owners of the subject property by virtue of their
successional rights as heirs of Jayme.
REYES, JR., J p:
For clarity of the discussion, the heirs of
While the Court could not hold the bonds of Jayme and his wife, Telesfora Garzon, who both
familial relationships together through force, it could died intestate, were their four (4) children:
hope to deter any further degradation of this sacred 1. Vicente Morales, who was survived by his
tie through law. children: (a) herein deceased
defendant Ernesto Morales
(substituted by his heirs who are
The Case now petitioners herein);(b) Abraham
Morales (also deceased);(c) former
plaintiff and, eventually, defendant
Challenged before the Court via this Petition
Lydia Morales (now also
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
deceased);and (d) original
of Court is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals
defendant Angelita Ragasa;
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 101991, promulgated on
August 13, 2015, which affirmed the Decision 2 of 2. Simeon Morales, who was survived by his
the Regional Trial Court (RTC),Branch 12 of Laoag children: (a) herein respondent
City, in Civil Case No. 14438-12, dated November Astrid Morales Agustin; (b) Leonides
22, 2013. Likewise challenged is the subsequent Morales; (c) Geraldine Morales-
Resolution 3 of the CA promulgated on April 21, Gaspar; and (d) Odessa Morales;
2016, which upheld the earlier decision.
3. Jose Morales, who was survived by his
children: (a) Victoria Geron; (b)
Vicente Morales; (c) Gloria
The Facts
Villasenor; (d) Amalia Alejo; (e)
Juliet Manuel; (f) Rommel Morales;
The respondent, Astrid Morales Agustin, is a and (g) Virgilio Morales (now
grandchild of Jayme Morales (Jayme),who was the deceased);
registered owner of a parcel of land with
4. Martina Morales-Enriquez, who was
improvements, designated as Lot No. 9217-A, and
survived by her children: (a) Evelina
located at Barangay Sto. Tomas, Laoag City. 4 The
Lopez; (b) Emeterio Enriquez; (c)
subject property is covered by Transfer Certificate of
Elizabeth Somera; and (d)
Title (TCT) No. T-37139, more particularly described
Bernardita Alojipan. 7
as follows:
In response to the respondent's complaint,
A parcel of land (Lot 9217-
the heirs of Jose Morales filed an answer, which
A, Psd-01-062563, being a portion
9
admitted the allegations in the complaint, and Simeon Morales, who was
interposed no objection to the partition, "provided succeeded by right of representation
that their present positions on the subject property by his children Odessa A. Morales,
are respected." 8 Geraldine Morales Gaspar,
Leonides A. Morales and Astrid A.
On the other hand, Ernesto Morales, as one
Morales-Agustin; (3) Jose Morales
of the heirs of Vicente Morales, filed an Answer with
who was succeeded by right of
Motion to Dismiss and Compulsory Counter-claims.
representation by his children,
He alleged that herein respondent has no cause of
Ronnel Morales,
action against the petitioners because: (1) the proper
Morales, (sic) Victoria Morales,
remedy should not be a complaint for partition but an
Vicente Morales, Manuel Morales,
action for the settlement of the intestate estate of
Gloria Morales, Virgilio Morales,
Jayme and his wife; and (2) herein respondent has
Amelia Morales and Juliet Morales;
no more right of participation over the subject
(4) Martina Morales, who was
property because the same has long been conveyed
succeeded by right of representation
to Ernesto Morales (as substituted by herein
by her children, Emeterio Morales-
petitioners) by the respondent's parents, Simeon and
Enriquez, Evelina Morales Enriquez-
Leonila Morales. 9
Lopez, Elizabeth Morales Enriquez-
Meanwhile, per the Order of the RTC dated Somera and Bernardita Morales
April 22, 2009, summons to the heirs of Martina Enriquez-Alojipan;
Morales-Enriquez, who were at that time residing
(2) Adjudicating in favor of
abroad, were allowed to be served
the above-named heirs by right
personally. 10 They were subsequently declared to
representation (sic) their respective
be in default. 11 In response, one of Martina
one-fourth (1/4) share each of the
Morales-Enriquez's heirs, Emeterio Enriquez, filed a
group of heirs by right of
Motion to Dismiss and alleged that the RTC did not
representation over the above-
acquire jurisdiction over his person because he was
stated Lot No. 9217-A; and
not furnished with a copy of the Amended
Complaint. 12 (3) Ordering the parties to
submit their common project of
In the hearing dated February 8, 2012, the
partition of the subject lot with
RTC heard the testimony of the respondent. There
utmost dispatch for approval by the
being no other witnesses to be presented, the
Court;
respondent manifested that she was ready to submit
her formal offer of exhibits. 13 (4) To pay the cost of the
suit.
After a protracted hearing on motions and
other incidents of the case, the RTC rendered its SO ORDERED. 14
decision on November 22, 2013 via a summary
The RTC ruled that: (1) the estate of a
judgment in favor of herein respondent, the
deceased who died intestate may be partitioned
dispositive portion of which reads:
without need of any settlement or administration
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF proceeding; 15 and (2) the RTC properly and
ALL THE FOREGOING lawfully rendered summary judgment despite the
DISQUISITIONS, the Court finds absence of any motion from any of the parties
preponderance of evidence in favor praying for the application of the rules thereon. 16
of the plaintiffs and judgment is
Aggrieved, the petitioners elevated the case
hereby rendered:
to the CA, which thereafter dismissed the appeal
(1) Decreeing the partition and affirmed the RTC Decision on August 13, 2015.
of Lot No. 9217-A above-stated in
The CA opined that the settlement of the
the following mannfer (sic) and
entire estate of the late spouses Jayme and
proportion of one-fourth (1/4) share
Telesfora is "of no moment in the instant case of
each each (sic) of the direct heirs of
partition" 17 because the respondent was "asserting
the late spouses Jayme Morales
her right as a co-owner of the subject property by
and Telesfora Garzon, namely: (1)
virtue of her successional right from her deceased
Vicente Morales, who was
father Simeon Morales, who was once a co-owner of
succeeded by right of representation
the said property, and not from Jayme and Telesfora
by his children Ernesto Morales
Morales." 18
(duly substituted by his
heirs),Abraham Morales, Angelina Further, the CA ruled that an action for
Ragasa and Lydia Morales; (2) partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court is an
10
action quasi in rem,and thus, "jurisdiction over the JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL
impleaded defendants-heirs is not required since the COURT ALTHOUGH IT WAS
trial court has jurisdiction over the res or the subject UNDISPUTABLY RENDERED
property which is the subject matter of the action for WITHOUT ANY PRIOR MOTION
partition." 19 AND HEARING THEREFOR, AND
IN THE FACE OF PENDING
Finally, the CA ruled that summary judgment
INCIDENTS WHICH INCLUDE
in this case is proper despite the absence of any
THE: (a) MOTION TO DISMISS OF
motion from any of the parties. In support hereto, the
DEFENDANT EMITERIO
CA ratiocinated that the parties prayed for resolution
ENRIQUEZ ON THE GROUND OF
of all "pending motions/incidents" during the hearing
LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER
on September 18, 2013, and acceded to the RTC
HIS PERSON ROOTED ON THE
pronouncement therein that its resolution "shall be
LACK OF SUMMONS SERVED
considered as a decision in the said case for
UPON HIM, (b) THE NON-
partition." 20
SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO
The fallo of the CA decision reads: DEFENDANT ANGELITA RAGASA,
AND (c) THE MOTION TO
WHEREFORE, the instant WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR
appeal is DISMISSED. THE PLAINTIFF (HEREIN
The Decision of the Regional Trial RESPONDENT).22
Court, Branch 12, Laoag City dated
November 22, 2013 is AFFIRMED. In essence, the Court is called upon
to rule on the following issues: (1) whether or not the
Despite the petitioners' motion for partition of the subject property is proper despite the
reconsideration, the CA affirmed its decision via a absence of the settlement of the estate of the
Resolution dated April 21, 2016. 21 deceased registered owner thereof; (2) whether or
Hence, this petition. not the RTC could motu proprio apply the rule on
Summary Judgment; and (3) whether or not the RTC
could validly render a decision even in the absence
The Issues of proof of proper service of summons to some of
the real parties in interest in a quasi in
rem proceeding.
The petitioners anchor their prayer for the
reversal of the CA decision and resolution based on
the following grounds: The Court's Ruling
(1) THE [CA] SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT
FINDING THAT THE After a careful perusal of the arguments
PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL presented and the evidence submitted, the Court
COURT WERE VOID finds partial merit in the petition.
CONSIDERING THAT NOT ALL
THE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE First, on the Procedural Issue of Improper
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES WERE Service of Summons
EVER SERVED WITH SUMMONS The petitioners question the acquisition by
IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. the RTC of the jurisdiction to decide on the instant
(2) THE [CA] MANIFESTLY ERRED IN case. After a judicious study of the relevant factual
FAILING TO CONSIDER THE antecedents, the Court rules against the petitioner
NECESSITY OF HAVING THE and in favor of the findings of the RTC and the CA.
ESTATE OF THE PARTIES' The partition of real estate is an action
INTESTATE PREDECESSORS quasi in rem.23 Jurisprudence is replete with
(i.e.,SPOUSES JAYME AND pronouncements that, for the court to acquire
TELESFORA MORALES) BE jurisdiction in actions quasi in rem,it is necessary
DETERMINED AND SETTLED only that it has jurisdiction over the res.In the case
FIRST BEFORE THE of Macasaet vs. Co, Jr.,24 the Court stated that
DISTRIBUTION AND/OR "[j]urisdiction over the defendant in an action in
PARTITION OF ANY OF THE rem or quasi in rem is not required, and the court
PROPERTIES WHICH FORM acquires jurisdiction over an action as long as it
PART OF SAID ESTATE. acquires jurisdiction over the res that is the subject
(3) THE [CA] MOST UTTERLY ERRED IN matter of the action." 25
UPHOLDING THE SUMMARY
11
 In the case of De Pedro v. Romasan Elizabeth Somera received in
Development Corporation, n 26 the Court clarified Hanover Dirk, Illinois on June 27,
that while this is so, "to satisfy the requirements of 2009 a copy each of the Summons
due process, jurisdiction over the parties in in and of the Complaint as per verified
rem and quasi in rem actions is required." 27 Thus, Affidavit of Service of one George
regardless of the nature of the action, proper service Pierce and defendant Evelina Lopez
of summons is imperative and that a decision received in Trenton, Michigan on
rendered without proper service of summons suffers July 4, 2009 a copy each of
a defect in jurisdiction. 28 Summons and Complaint as per
verified Affidavit of Service issued
According to De Pedro,the court may
by Herb Alexander. 32
acquire jurisdiction over the thing by actually or
constructively seizing or placing it under the court's None of the petitioners' submissions are
custody. 29 In the landmark case of El Banco sufficient to justify the Court's deviation from these
Español Filipino vs. Palanca,30 the Court has factual findings by the CA, which affirmed the
already ruled that: jurisdiction of the RTC. By necessary implication,
therefore, the Court must perforce rule against the
Jurisdiction over the
petitioners on this ground.
property which is the subject of the
litigation may result either from a Second, on the Issue of Summary Judgment
seizure of the property under legal
A summary judgment in this jurisdiction is
process, whereby it is brought into
allowed by Rule 35 of the Rules of
the actual custody of the law, or it
Court. 33 According to the case of Wood
may result from the institution of
Technology Corporation, et al. vs. Equitable Banking
legal proceedings wherein, under
Corporation,34 it is a procedure aimed at weeding
special provisions of law, the
out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the
power of the court over the
litigation. It is granted to settle expeditiously a case
property is recognized and made
if, on motion of either party, there appears from the
effective.(Emphasis supplied)
pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits
In this case, the filing of the complaint before that no important issues of fact are involved, except
the RTC which sought to partition the subject the amount of damages. 35 Thus, said the Court in
property effectively placed the latter under the power the case of Viajar vs. Judge Estenzo,36 as cited
of the court. On this front, none of the parties in Cadirao, etc., et al. vs. Hon. Estenzo, etc., et
challenged the RTC's jurisdiction. al.: n 37
But more than this, in compliance with De Relief by summary
Pedro,there is in this case proper service of judgment is intended to expedite
summons to the defendants. In no uncertain terms, or promptly dispose of cases
the CA found that: (1) the heirs of Vicente Morales where the facts appear
received summons, filed an Answer, and actively undisputed and certain from the
participated in the trial; (2) the heirs of Jose Morales pleadings, depositions,
filed their Answer and admitted to the allegations in admissions and affidavits.But if
the complaint; and (3) the heirs of Martina Morales there be a doubt as to such facts
were duly served with summons, copies of the and there be an issue or issues of
complaint, and actively participated in the trial. 31 fact joined by the parties, neither
one of them can pray for a summary
Even the trial court authoritatively concluded
judgment. Where the facts pleaded
the same in saying that:
by the parties are disputed or
As borne out from the contested, proceedings for a
record of the case, Summons and a summary judgment cannot take the
copy of the Complaint was served place of a trial. 38 (Emphasis and
upon and received by defendant underscoring supplied)
Emeterio Enriquez in Virginia Beach
A reading of the foregoing would reveal that,
on June 25, 2009 as per verified
in the application of the rules on summary
Affidavit of Service of one Nancy G.
judgments, the proper inquiry would be whether the
Wood. Defendant Bernardita
affirmative defenses offered by herein petitioners
Alojipan in Trenton, MI received on
before the trial court constitute genuine issues of fact
July 4, 2009 a copy each of
requiring a full-blown trial. 39 In other words, the
Summons and Complaint as per
crucial question is: are the issues raised by
verified Affidavit of Service of one
Herb Alexander. Defendant
12
petitioners not genuine so as to justify a summary that purpose. In that case, the trial court judge
judgment? 40 opined that "the basic facts of the case were
undisputed" 47 and that, even after the parties'
In Evangelista vs. Mercator Finance
refusal to file a motion for summary judgment, the
Corp.,41 the Court has already defined a genuine
trial court rendered a judgment sans trial. In ruling
issue as an issue of fact which calls for the
for the nullity of such issued judgment, the Court
presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an
said that:
issue which is fictitious or contrived, 42 set up in bad
faith and patently unsubstantial so as not to The filing of a motion and
constitute a genuine issue for trial. 43 According the conduct of a hearing on the
to Spouses Pascual vs. First Consolidated Rural motion are therefore
Bank (Bohol), Inc.,44 where the facts pleaded by the important because these enable
parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for a the court to determine if the parties'
summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial. pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in
support of, or against, the motion
More, the propriety of issuing a summary
are sufficient to overcome the
judgment springs not only from the lack of a genuine
opposing papers and adequately
issue which is raised by either party, but also from
justify the finding that, as a matter of
the observance of the procedural guidelines for the
law, the claim is clearly meritorious
rendition of such judgment. Thus, in Cadirao, the
or there is no defense to the
Court nullified the summary judgment issued by the
action. 48 (Emphasis and
trial court when the rules on summary judgment was
underscoring supplied)
applied despite the absence of a motion from the
respondent asking for the application thereof. The Even in the pre-trial stage of a case,
Court said: a motion for the application of summary judgment
is necessary.In the recent case of Spouses Pascual
And that is not all,
vs. First Consolidated Rural Bank (BOHOL),
The (sic) nullity of the assailed
Inc.,49 Justice Bersamin pointed out that:
Summary Judgment stems not only
from the circumstances that such To be clear, the rule only
kind of a judgment is not proper spells out that unless the motion for
under the state of pleadings such judgment has earlier been
obtaining in the instant case, but filed, the pre-trial may be the
also from the failure to comply with occasion in which the court
the procedural guidelines for the considers the propriety of
rendition of such a rendering judgment on the
judgment. Contrary to the pleadings or summary judgment.
requirements prescribed by If no such motion was earlier
the Rules, no motion for a filed, the pre-trial judge may then
summary judgment was filed by indicate to the proper party to
private respondent.Consequently, initiate the rendition of such
no notice or hearing for the purpose judgment by filing the necessary
was ever conducted by the trial motion. Indeed, such motion is
court. The trial court merely required required by
the parties to submit their affidavits either Rule 34 (Judgment on the
and exhibits, together with their Pleadings) or Rule 35 (Summary
respective memoranda, and without Judgment) of the Rules of
conducting any hearing, although Court.The pre-trial judge
the parties presented opposing cannot motu proprio render the
claims of ownership and judgment on the pleadings or
possession, hastily rendered a summary judgment.In the case of
Summary Judgment. The trial court the motion for summary judgment,
was decidedly in error in cursorily the adverse party is entitled to
issuing the said counter the motion. 50 (Emphasis
Judgment.45 (Emphasis supplied, and underscoring supplied, citations
citations omitted) omitted)
Still, in the more recent case of Calubaquib, Indeed, Calubaquib even proceeded further
et al. vs. Republic of the Phils.,46 the Court once in saying that the "non-observance of the procedural
more was asked to determine the propriety of the requirements of filing a motion and conducting a
summary judgment rendered by the trial court judge hearing on the said motion warrants the setting
in the absence of any motion filed by the parties for aside of the summary judgment." 51
13
 On the basis of the foregoing disquisitions, These opinions, however, are reversible
the Court now focuses its attention to the factual errors on the part of both the trial court and the CA.
milieu surrounding the present case. To begin with, The question of who shall inherit which part of the
the Court is of the opinion that the petitioners, from property and in what proportion is in the province of
the beginning of the proceedings, have already the partition of the estate of a deceased. That an
submitted an issue of fact that definitively calls for heir disposed of his/her aliquot portion in favor of
the presentation of evidence. They have, for all another heir is a matter that should be fully litigated
intents and purposes, presented a genuine issue on in a partition proceeding — as in this case.
that should have foreclosed the rendition of a
In the case of Intestate Estate of Josefa
summary judgment.
Tangco, et al. vs. De Borja,58 the Court has already
Particularly, while the petitioners have not ruled that an heir to an inheritance could dispose of
questioned the fact that the subject property his/her hereditary rights to whomever he/she
belonged to their progenitor, Jayme, they have, chooses. This is because:
however, asserted that herein respondent has "no
[A]s a hereditary share in a
more right of participation" over the same. 52 The
decedent's estate is transmitted or
Answer with Motion to Dismiss and Compulsory
vested immediately from the
Counter-Claims claimed that:
moment of the death of
7.4 Astrid Morales Agustin has no such causante or predecessor in
more right or participation — interest, there is no legal bar to a
successor (with requisite contracting
Plaintiff's supposed share in the
capacity) disposing of her or his
property, together with her siblings,
hereditary share immediately after
have long been conveyed to herein
such death, even if the actual extent
defendant Ernesto Morales by said
of such share is not determined until
plaintiff's own parents, the late
the subsequent liquidation of the
Simeon Morales and Leonila
estate. 59
Morales. Thus, plaintiff has no more
footing to demand partition of the lot Further, still according to Intestate Estate of
for her benefit. x x x. 53 Josefa Tangco, this alienation by the heirs of their
aliquot portion of the inheritance is recognized by no
In fact, the original respondent in this case,
less than the Civil Code, viz.:
the father of herein petitioners, attached in his
pleading "several handwritten receipts showing "[A]nd as already shown,
payment of their share to the property, then called that eventual share she owned from
'camarin.'" 54 the time of Francisco's death and
the Court of Nueva Ecija could not
In the RTC decision, the trial judge hastily
bar her selling it. As owner of her
dismissed this argument and asserted that:
undivided hereditary share, Tasiana
The alleged written could dispose of it in favor of
documents of debt of plaintiffs' whomsoever she chose. Such
parents Simeon Morales and alienation is expressly recognized
Leonila Albano Morales are not and provided for by article 1088 of
genuine issue of material facts the present Civil Code:
because these documents have no
Art. 1088. Should any of the
effect on the partition of the subject
heirs sell his hereditary rights to a
lot, not debts of the intestate estate
stranger before the partition, any or
of the spouses Jayme Morales and
all of the co-heirs may be
Telesfora Garzon and they are not
subrogated to the rights of the
binding upon the plaintiffs herein. 55
purchaser by reimbursing him for
In affirming this decision, the CA even the price of the sale, provided they
opined that the issue raised by herein petitioners is do so within the period of one month
"of no moment in the instant case of from the time they were notified in
partition" 56 because the respondent was "asserting writing of the sale of the vendor.
her right as a co-owner of the subject property by
If a sale of a hereditary
virtue of her successional right from her deceased
right can be made to a stranger,
father Simeon Morales, who was once a co-owner of
then a fortiori sale thereof to a
the said property, and not from Jayme and Telesfora
coheir could not be
Morales." 57
forbidden." 60 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
14
 In yet another case, Alejandrino vs. Court of submitted for resolution as
Appeals,61 the Court has ruled that "when a co- embodied in its Order dated October
owner sells his inchoate right in the co-ownership, 29, 2013 could not have warranted
he expresses his intention to 'put an end to indivision the motu proprio summary
among (his) co-heirs.' Partition among co-owners judgment. To begin with, the
may thus be evidenced by the overt act of a co- appellee herself in her Appellee's
owner of renouncing his right over the property Brief, concedes that what were
regardless of the form it takes." 62 The Court based submitted for resolution during the
this assertion on Article 1082 of the Civil Code, October 29, 2013 hearing were the
which states that: same pending motions as stated
earlier, and could not have been the
Art. 1082. Every act which is
case of partition itself. It can be
intended to put an end to indivision
culled even from the assailed
among co-heirs and legatees or
Decision of the trial Court itself that
devisees is deemed to be a
what were submitted for resolution
partition, although it should purport
were the then pending incidents and
to be a sale, an exchange, a
not the main case for partition
compromise, or any other
itself. 65 (Citations omitted)
transaction.(Emphasis and
underscoring supplied) In their petition, the petitioners reiterated this
assertion, to wit:
Thus, when the petitioners herein asserted
that the respondent has "no more right of 27. To the clear
participation" over the subject property because the understanding of the parties
successional rights of the respondent's parents over including Atty. Cortes, the pending
the same has already been conveyed to the incidents at the time were
petitioners' father, the petitioners tendered a genuine the Motion to Dismiss filed by
issue. They were in fact stating that the respondent's defendant Emeterio Enriquez
parents exercised their right to sell, exchange, or questioning the jurisdiction of the
compromise their undivided inchoate share of their trial court over him for lack of
inheritance from Jayme, and, as the Court ruled service of
in Alejandrino, the respondent's parents intended a summons; the Opposition thereto f
partition of the property as defined in Article 1079 of iled by herein respondent;
the Civil Code.63 the Reply of Emeterio Enriquez to
the opposition of the
The truthfulness of this allegation, however,
appellee; the Rejoinder to the
could only be ascertained through the presentation
reply;and the Motion to
of evidence during trial, and not in a summary
Withdraw filed by therein counsel
judgment.
of herein respondent.
More, the RTC did not only commit
28. Unpredictably and
reversible error by rendering a summary judgment
beyond the expectation of the
despite the presence of a genuine issue, it also
defendants including herein
committed reversible error by applying the rules on
petitioners, the trial court
summary judgment despite the absence of any
rendered a summary judgment as
motion from any of the parties that prayed for
embodied in its Decision dated 22
the rule's application.
November 2013. The presiding
In their Motion for Reconsideration on the judge and ponente of said decision
RTC decision, the petitioners argued that none of soon retired on March 2014. 66
the parties prayed for the issuance of a summary
Even the respondent did not deny the
judgment. They further averred that the "unilateral
petitioners' allegation that no motion was filed to
declaration of the trial court that the resolution
apply the rules on summary judgment. In addition, in
supposedly on the pending motions/incidents will
its decision, the trial court itself admitted to having
also be considered as the resolution of the partition
issued the same motu proprio,as none of the parties
case cannot take the place of the required motion
herein moved for such summary judgment. It stated
and hearing." 64 In fact, they were adamant in
that:
clarifying that:
x x x [S]ummary judgment
12.3. The supposed
maybe (sic) rendered in this case
reiteration by the trial Court of its
upon the own initiative of the Court
declaration that the "pending
as none of the parties moved for
motions/incidents" were considered
15
 such summary judgment to be another, and although in many ways similar, these
rendered in this instant two partitions draw legal basis from two different
case despite the glaring and sets of legal provisions in the Civil Code of the
apparent existence of no genuine Philippines (Civil Code). 73
issue on material facts, sham
To begin with, the laws governing the
defenses had been put by the
partition of inheritance draws basis from Article 777
defense or mere general denial of
of the Civil Code, which states that the rights to the
the cause of action for partition
succession are transmitted from the moment of the
judicially demanded by the plaintiffs
death of the decedent. As such, from that moment,
had been alleged by the
the heirs, legatees, and devisees' successional
defendants. 67 (Emphasis supplied)
rights are vested, and they are considered to own in
Thus, that the trial court rendered a common the inheritance left by the decedent.
summary judgment despite the absence of any
Under the law, partition of the inheritance
motion calling for its application was in clear
may only be effected by (1) the heirs themselves
contravention of the established rules of procedure.
extrajudicially, (2) by the court in an ordinary action
To be sure, on the strength of the Court's
for partition, or in the course of administration
unequivocal pronouncements
proceedings, (3) by the testator himself, and (4) by
in Cadirao,68 Viajar,69 Calubaquib,70 and Pascual,
the third person designated by the testator. 74
71 which require the observance of the procedural
guidelines for the rendition of summary judgments, A reading of the enumeration set above
the RTC committed reversible error, and the RTC would reveal instances when the appointment of an
and CA decisions must perforce be annulled and set executor or administrator is dispensed with. One is
aside. through the execution of a public instrument by the
heirs in an extrajudicial settlement of the
On the Issue of Partition and the Settlement
estate. 75 Another, which is the focal point of this
of Estate
case, is through the ordinary action of partition. 76
On the basis of the discourse above, there
According to Rule 74 of the Rules of Court,
should have been no further necessity to discuss the
the heirs may resort to an ordinary action of partition
final issue herein presented. Nonetheless, for the
of the estate of the deceased if they disagree as to
guidance of the RTC in resolving the instant case, a
the exact division of the estate, and only "[i]f the
discussion of the nature of the partition is in order.
decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are
The petitioners argue that an administration all of age, or the minors are represented by their
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for
deceased is a condition that has to be met before the purpose." 77
any partition of the estate and any distribution
The ordinary action for partition therefore is
thereof to the heirs could be effected.
meant to take the place of the special proceeding on
While the Court does not agree with this the settlement of the estate. The reason is that, if the
assertion by the petitioners, the Court, nonetheless, deceased dies without pending obligations, there is
agrees that the trial court should have collated no necessity for the appointment of an administrator
Jayme's other properties, if any, prior to the to administer the estate for the heirs and the
promulgation of any judgment of partition in creditors, much less, the necessity to deprive the
accordance with the laws on Succession. real owners of their possession to which they are
immediately entitled. 78
Generally, an action for partition may be
seen to simultaneously present two issues: first, Thus, an action for partition with regard to
there is the issue of whether the plaintiff is indeed a the inheritance of the heirs should conform to the
co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned; law governing the partition and distribution of the
and second, assuming that the plaintiff successfully estate, and not only to the law governing ordinary
hurdles the first issue, there is the secondary issue partition. These pertinent provisions of the law could
of how the property is to be divided between the be found in Title IV (Succession), Chapter 4
plaintiff and defendants, i.e.,what portion should go (Provisions Common to Testate and Intestate
to which co-owner. 72 Successions), Section 6 (Partition and Distribution of
the Estate) of the Civil Code.79
The Court must emphasize, however, that
this definition does not take into account the Particularly, according to Article 1078 of
difference between (1) an action of partition based the Civil Code, where there are two or more heirs,
on the successional rights of the heirs of a decedent, the whole estate of the decedent is owned in
and (2) an ordinary action of partition among co- common by such heirs, subject to the payment of
owners. While oftentimes interchanged with one debts of the deceased. 80 Partition, the Civil

16
Code adds, is the separation, division and proceedings, 86 which, like the procedural aspect of
assignment of a thing held in common among those the partition by virtue of successional rights, is
to whom it may belong. 81 Thus, every act which is governed by Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.
intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs
Thus, while both partitions make use
and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a
of Rule 69 as the procedural rule that would govern
partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an
the manner of partition, the foregoing disquisitions
exchange, a compromise, or any other
explicitly elaborate that the bases of the ownership
transaction. 82
are different, and the subject matters concerned are
In addition, and on account of this partition, also different — one speaks of the partition of
Article 1061 of the Civil Code requires the parties to the estate to distribute the inheritance to the heirs,
collate the properties of the decedent which they legatees, or devisees, whereas the other speaks of
may have received by way of gratuitous title prior to partition of any undivided thing or right to distribute
the former's death, to wit: to the co-owners thereof.
Article 1061. Every In the case at hand, the parties are the heirs
compulsory heir, who succeeds with of the late Jayme Morales. The land being sought to
other compulsory heirs, must bring be divided was a property duly registered under
into the mass of the estate any Jayme's name. Necessarily, therefore, the partition
property or right which he may invoked by the respondents is the partition of the
have received from the decedent, estate of the deceased Jayme.
during the lifetime of the latter, by
As such, when the petitioners alleged in
way of donation, or any other
their answer that there is yet another property that
gratuitous title, in order that it may
needs to be partitioned among the parties, they were
be computed in the determination of
actually invoking the Civil Code provisions, not on
the legitime of each heir, and in the
Co-ownership, but on Succession, which necessarily
account of the partition.(1035a)
includes Article 1061 of the Civil Code — the
(Emphasis supplied)
provision on collation. It is therefore proper for the
On the procedural aspect, the partition of the trial court to have delved into this issue presented by
estate based on the successional rights of the heirs, the petitioner instead of disregarding the same and
as herein mentioned, is required by Rule 74 of limiting itself only to that singular property submitted
the Rules of Court (Summary Settlement of Estate) by the respondent for partition. As the case
to follow the rules on "ordinary action of partition." of Gulang vs. Court of Appeals 87 said:
This pertains to Rule 69 (Partition), Section 13 of the
In case the defendants
same rules, which states that:
assert in their Answer exclusive
Section 13. Partition of title in themselves adversely to
personal property. — The the plaintiff, the court should not
provisions of this Rule shall apply dismiss the plaintiff's action for
to partitions of estates composed partition but, on the contrary and in
of personal property, or of both real the exercise of its general
and personal property, in so far as jurisdiction, resolve the question of
the same may be applicable. (13) whether the plaintiff is co-owner or
(Emphasis supplied) not. 88 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Once legally partitioned, each heir is
conferred with the exclusive ownership of the Nonetheless, lest it be misunderstood, the
property, which was adjudicated to him/her. 83 law does not prohibit partial partition. In fact, the
Court, in administration proceedings, have allowed
In contrast, an ordinary partition of co-owned
partition for special instances. But the Court should
property, specifically of real property, is governed by
caution that this power should be exercised
Title III of the Civil Code on Co-ownership.
sparingly. This is because a partial partition and
Article 484 of the Civil Code provides that distribution of the estate does not put to rest the
there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an question of the division of the entire estate. In
undivided thing or right belongs to different the case of Gatmaitan vs. Medina,89 Justice J.B.L.
persons. 84 It further provides that no co-owner shall Reyes warned:
be obliged to remain in the co-ownership; each co-
The lower court, we believe,
owner may demand at any time the partition of the
erred in rendering the order
thing owned in common, insofar as his share is
appealed from. A partial
concerned. 85 This partition may be made by
distribution of the decedent's
agreement between the parties, or by judicial
estate pending the final
17
 termination of the testate or
intestate proceedings should as
much as possible be discouraged
by the courts and, unless in
extreme cases, such form of
advances of inheritance should
not be countenanced. The reason
for this strict rule is obvious —
courts should guard with utmost zeal
and jealousy the estate of the
decedent to the end that the
creditors thereof be adequately
protected and all the rightful heirs
assured of their shares in the
inheritance. 90 (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the Court is of the opinion that
there is no cogent reason to render the partition of
one of Jayme's properties and totally ignore the
others, if any. Absent any circumstance that would
warrant the partial partition and distribution of
Jayme's estate, the prudent remedy is to settle the
entirety of the estate in the partition proceedings in
the court a quo.Besides, as stated by the Court
in Gulang,it is quite unnecessary to require the
plaintiff to file another action, separate and
independent from that of partition originally
instituted. 91 This would entail wastage of additional
time and resources, which could already be avoided
through consolidated proceedings in the court a quo.
In sum, the factual milieu of this case
presents questions of facts which are crucial in the
complete resolution of the controversy. The Court
finds sufficiency in the trial court's decision with
regard to the summons directed against the warring
heirs — as submitted by the respondent, but also
finds error in the trial court's refusal to delve into the
genuine issue concerning the partition of the subject
property — as submitted by the petitioners. In the
end, only a full-blown trial on the merits of each of
the parties' claims — and not a mere summary
judgment — could write finis on this family drama.
WHEREFORE,premises considered, the
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 101991 dated August 13, 2015 and
April 21, 2016, respectively, are hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE.The case is ORDERED
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12,
of Laoag City for further proceedings. The trial court
judge is ORDERED to hear the case with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
||| (Heirs of Morales v. Agustin, G.R. No. 224849, [June
6, 2018])

18
 the 162 sq. m. and "Leandro Figuracion, married to
Carolina Adviento" as owner of 7,385 sq. m. This lot
4. GERILLA V. CAROLINA VDA. DE continued to be in the name of Leandro in Tax
FIGURACION, ET. AL., GR 154322, 8/22/06 Declaration No. 616 for the year 1985.
What gave rise to the complaint for partition,
[G.R. No. 154322. August 22, 2006.]
however, was a dispute between petitioner and her
sister, respondent Mary, over the eastern half of Lot 707
EMILIA FIGURACION- of the Cadastral Survey of Urdaneta with an area of
GERILLA, petitioner, vs. CAROLINA 3,164 sq. m.
VDA. DE FIGURACION, * ELENA
Lot 707 belonged to Eulalio Adviento, as
FIGURACION-ANCHETA, * HILARIA
evidenced by OCT No. 15867 issued on February 9,
A. FIGURACION, FELIPA
1916. When Adviento died, his two daughters, Agripina
FIGURACION-MANUEL, QUINTIN
Adviento (his daughter by his first wife) and respondent
FIGURACION and MARY
Carolina (his daughter by his second wife), succeeded
FIGURACION-GINEZ, respondents.
him to it. On November 28, 1961, Agripina executed a
quitclaim in favor of petitioner over the one-half eastern
portion of Lot 707. Agripina died on July 28, 1963, single
DECISION and without any issue. Before her half-sister's death,
however, respondent Carolina adjudicated unto herself,
via affidavit under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court,the
entire Lot 707 which she later sold to respondents Felipa
CORONA, J p: and Hilaria. The latter two immediately had OCT No.
15867 cancelled, on December 11, 1962. A new title,
In this petition for review TCT No. 42244, was then issued in the names of Felipa
on certiorari, 1 petitioner Emilia Figuracion-Gerilla and Hilaria for Lot 707.
challenges the decision 2 and resolution 3 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of the Regional In February 1971, petitioner and her family went
Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch to the United States where they stayed for ten years.
49, which dismissed her complaint for partition. The Returning in 1981, 6 she built a house made of strong
properties involved are two parcels of land which materials on the eastern half-portion of Lot 707. She
belonged to her late father, Leandro Figuracion. continued paying her share of the realty taxes
thereon. HDAaIc
The facts of the case follow. 4
It was sometime later that this dispute erupted.
Spouses Leandro and respondent Carolina Petitioner sought the extrajudicial partition of all
Figuracion (now both deceased) had six children: properties held in common by her and respondents. On
petitioner and respondents Elena Figuracion-Ancheta May 23, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint in the RTC of
(now deceased), Hilaria Figuracion, Felipa Figuracion- Urdaneta City, Branch 49, for partition, annulment of
Manuel, Quintin Figuracion and Mary Figuracion-Ginez. documents, reconveyance, quieting of title and damages
against respondents, praying, among others, for: (1) the
On August 23, 1955, Leandro executed a deed partition of Lots 2299 and 705; (2) the nullification of the
of quitclaim over his real properties in favor of his six affidavit of self-adjudication executed by respondent
children. When he died in 1958, he left behind two Carolina over Lot 707, the deed of absolute sale in favor
parcels of land: (1) Lot 2299 of the Cadastral Survey of of respondents Felipa and Hilaria, and TCT No. 42244;
Urdaneta consisting of 7,547 square meters with (3) a declaration that petitioner was the owner of one-
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 4221-P in the half of Lot 707 and (4) damages. The case was docketed
name of "Leandro Figuracion, married to Carolina as Civil Case No. U-5826.
Adviento" and (2) Lot 705 of the Cadastral Survey of
Urdaneta with an area of 2,900 sq. m. with TCT No. On the other hand, respondents took the
4220-P also in the name of "Leandro Figuracion, married position that Leandro's estate should first undergo
to Carolina Adviento." Leandro had inherited both lots settlement proceedings before partition among the heirs
from his deceased parents, 5 as evidenced by Original could take place. And they claimed that an accounting of
Certificate of Title (OCT) Nos. 16731 and 16610, expenses chargeable to the estate was necessary for
respectively, issued by the Register of Deeds of the such settlement.
Province of Pangasinan.
On June 26, 1997, 7 the RTC 8 rendered
Leandro sold a portion of Lot 2299 to Lazaro judgment nullifying Carolina's affidavit of self-
Adviento, as a result of which TCT No. 4221-P was adjudication and deed of absolute sale of Lot 707. It also
cancelled and TCT No. 101331 was issued to "Lazaro declared Lots 2299 and 705 as exclusive properties of
Adviento, married to Rosenda Sagueped" as owner of Leandro Figuracion and therefore part of his estate. The
19
RTC, however, dismissed the complaint for partition, all other persons interested in the
reconveyance and damages on the ground that it could property.
not grant the reliefs prayed for by petitioner without any
(prior) settlement proceedings wherein the transfer of The right to an inheritance is transmitted
title of the properties should first be effected. immediately to the heirs by operation of law, at the
moment of death of the decedent. There is no doubt that,
On appeal, the CA upheld the dismissal of as one of the heirs of Leandro Figuracion, petitioner has
petitioner's action for partition for being premature. The a legal interest in Lot 2299. But can she compel partition
CA reversed the decision, however, with respect to the at this stage?
nullification of the self-adjudication and the deed of sale.
Upholding the validity of the affidavit of self-adjudication There are two ways by which partition can take
and deed of sale as to Carolina's one-half pro- place under Rule 69: by agreement under Section
indiviso share, it instead partitioned Lot 707. Dissatisfied, 2 11 and through commissioners when such agreement
respondents elevated the CA decision to this Court in cannot be reached, under Sections 3 to 6. 12
G.R. No. 151334, entitled Carolina vda. de Figuracion, et Neither method specifies a procedure for
al. v. Emilia Figuracion-Gerilla. 9 determining expenses chargeable to the decedent’s
The issue for our consideration is whether or not estate. While Section 8 of Rule 69 provides that there
there needs to be a prior settlement of Leandro's shall be an accounting of the real property's income
intestate estate (that is, an accounting of the income of (rentals and profits) in the course of an action for
Lots 2299 and 705, the payment of expenses, liabilities partition, 13 there is no provision for the accounting of
and taxes, plus compliance with other legal expenses for which property belonging to the decedent's
requirements, etc.) before the properties can be estate may be answerable, such as funeral expenses,
partitioned or distributed. inheritance taxes and similar expenses enumerated
under Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court.
Respondents claim that: (1) the properties
constituting Leandro's estate cannot be partitioned In a situation where there remains an issue as to
before his estate is settled and (2) there should be an the expenses chargeable to the estate, partition is
accounting before anything else, considering that they inappropriate. While petitioner points out that the estate
(respondents) had to spend for the maintenance of the is allegedly without any debt and she and respondents
deceased Leandro Figuracion and his wife in their final are Leandro Figuracion's only legal heirs, she does not
years, which support was supposed to come from the dispute the finding of the CA that "certain expenses"
income of the properties. Among other things, including those related to her father's final illness and
respondents apparently wanted petitioner to share in the burial have not been properly settled. 14 Thus, the heirs
expenses incurred for the care of their parents during the (petitioner and respondents) have to submit their father's
ten years she stayed in the United States, before she estate to settlement because the determination of these
could get her part of the estate while petitioner expenses cannot be done in an action for partition.
apparently wanted her gross share, without first In estate settlement proceedings, there is a
contributing to the expenses. proper procedure for the accounting of all expenses for
In any event, there appears to be a complication which the estate must answer. If it is any consolation at
with respect to the partition of Lot 705. The records refer all to petitioner, the heirs or distributees of the properties
to a case entitled Figuracion, et al. v. Alejo currently may take possession thereof even before the settlement
pending in the CA. The records, however, give no clue or of accounts, as long as they first file a bond conditioned
information regarding what exactly this case is all about. on the payment of the estate's obligations. 15
Whatever the issues may be, suffice it to say that WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
partition is premature when ownership of the lot is still in The Court of Appeals' decision and resolution in CA-
dispute. 10 G.R. CV No. 58290 are AFFIRMED in so far as the issue
Petitioner faces a different problem with respect of the partition of Lots 2299 and 705 is concerned.
to Lot 2299. Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of But with respect to Lot 707, we make no ruling
Court provides: on the validity of Carolina vda. de Figuracion's affidavit
SECTION 1. Complaint in of self-adjudication and deed of sale in favor of Felipa
action for partition of real estate. — A and Hilaria Figuracion in view of the fact that Carolina
person having the right to compel the vda. de Figuracion, et al. v. Emilia Figuracion-
partition of real estate may do so as Gerilla (G.R. No. 151334) is still pending in this Division.
provided in this Rule, setting forth in  
his complaint the nature and extent of
his title and an adequate description of Costs against petitioner.
the real estate of which partition is
demanded and joining as defendants SO ORDERED.

20
||| (Figuracion-Gerilla v. Vda. de Figuracion, G.R. No.
154322, [August 22, 2006], 531 PHIL 81-88)

21
 appointment of an administrator by the court. The Court
of Appeals found application of the rule in this case. The
5. MARIA SOCORRO AVELINO V. COURT OF decedent left no debts and the heirs and legatees are all
APPEALS, GR 115181, 3/31/2000 of age. With this finding, the Court viewed that Section 1,
Rule 74 of the Rules of Court should apply. Hence, the
[G.R. No. 115181. March 31, 2000.] Court of Appeals committed no reversible error when it
ruled that the lower court did not err in converting
petitioner's action for letters of administration into an
MARIA SOCORRO action for judicial partition. The petition was denied for
AVELINO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF lack of merit, and the assailed decision and resolution of
APPEALS, ANGELINA AVELINO, the Court of Appeals were affirmed.
SHARON AVELINO, ANTONIO
AVELINO, JR., TRACY AVELINO,
PATRICK MICHAEL AVELINO and SYLLABUS
MARK ANTHONY
AVELINO, respondents.
1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS;
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE; COMPETENT COURT
Vincent Jason T. Villanueva for petitioner. SHALL APPOINT A QUALIFIED ADMINISTRATOR IN
CASES WHERE DECEDENT'S ESTATE SHALL BE
Malaya Francisco & Sanchez Law Office for JUDICIALLY ADMINISTERED; EXCEPTIONS. — When
private respondents. a person dies intestate, or, if testate, failed to name an
executor in his will or the executor so named is
incompetent, or refuses the trust, or fails to furnish the
SYNOPSIS bond required by the Rules of Court, then the decedent's
estate shall be judicially administered and the competent
Petitioner Maria Socorro Avelino is a daughter court shall appoint a qualified administrator in the order
and compulsory heir of the late Antonio Avelino, Sr., and established in Section 6 of Rule 78. The exceptions to
his first wife private respondent Angelina Avelino. She this rule are found in Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 74 which
filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, a provide: "SECTION 1. Extrajudicial settlement by
petition for the issuance of letters of administration of the agreement between heirs. — If the decedent left no will
estate of Antonio Avelino, Sr., who died intestate and and no debts and the heirs are all of age or the minors
asked that she be appointed the administrator of the are represented by their judicial or legal representatives
estate. Angelina and the siblings filed their opposition by duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without
filing a motion to convert the said judicial proceedings to securing letters of administration, divide the estate
an action for judicial partition, which petitioner duly among themselves as they see fit by means of a public
opposed. The judge issued the assailed order which instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and
converted the petition for the issuance of letters of should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary
administration into a judicial partition of the estate of action of partition. SEC. 2. Summary settlement of
deceased Antonio Avelino, Sr. The parties were directed estates of small value. — Whenever the gross value of
to submit a complete inventory of all the real and the estate of a deceased person, whether he died testate
personal properties left by the deceased. Petitioner filed or intestate, does not exceed ten thousand pesos, and
a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Petitioner that fact is made to appear to the Regional Trial Court
filed before the Court of Appeals, a petition for certiorari, having jurisdiction of the estate by the petition of an
prohibition, and mandamus alleging grave abuse of interested person and upon hearing, which shall be held
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3)
the part of the trial court. The respondent appellate court months from the date of the last publication of a notice
issued the assailed decision which affirmed the order of which shall be published once a week for three (3)
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Hence, this consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation
petition. The sole issue here is whether respondent in the province, and after such other notice to interested
appellate court committed an error of law and gravely persons as the court may direct, the court may proceed
abused its discretion in upholding the trial court's finding summarily, without the appointment of an executor or
that a partition is proper in this case. administrator, and without delay, to grant, if proper,
allowance of the will, if any there be, to determine who
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 1, Rule are the persons legally entitled to participate in the
74 of the Rules of Court, allows heirs to divide the estate estate and to apportion and divide it among them after
among themselves without need of delay and risks of the payment of such debts of the estate as the court
being dissipated. When a person dies without leaving shall then find to be due; and such persons, in their own
pending obligations, his heirs are not required to submit right, if they are of lawful age and legal capacity, or by
the property for judicial administration, nor apply for the their guardians or trustees legally appointed and

22
qualified, if otherwise, shall thereupon be entitled to Sharon, an American, is the second wife of Avelino, Sr.
receive and enter into the possession of the portions of The other private respondents are siblings of petitioner
the estate so awarded to them respectively. The court Ma. Socorro.
shall make such order as may be just respecting the
costs of the proceedings, and all orders and judgments The records reveal that on October 24, 1991,
made or rendered in the course thereof shall be Ma. Socorro filed before the Regional Trial Court of
recorded in the office of the clerk, and the order of Quezon City, Branch 78, docketed as SP Proc. No. Q-
partition or award, if it involves real estate, shall be 91-10441, a petition for the issuance of letters of
recorded in the proper register's office." The heirs administration of the estate of Antonio Avelino, Sr., who
succeed immediately to all of the rights and properties of died intestate on April 10, 1989. She asked that she be
the deceased at the moment of the latter's death. appointed the administrator of the estate.
Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, allows heirs to On December 3, 1992, Angelina, and the
divide the estate among themselves without need of siblings filed their opposition by filing a motion to convert
delay and risks of being dissipated. When a person dies the said judicial proceedings to an action for judicial
without leaving pending obligations, his heirs are not partition which petitioner duly opposed.
required to submit the property for judicial administration,
nor apply for the appointment of an administrator by the On February 16, 1993, public respondent judge
court. issued the assailed Order which reads:
2. ID.; SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE; "Acting on the 'Motion to
WHEN ORDINARY ACTION FOR PARTITION MAY BE Convert Proceedings to Action for
RESORTED TO; CASE AT BAR. — The basis for the Judicial Partition', considering that the
trial court's order converting an action for letters of petitioner is the only heir not
administration to one for judicial partition is Section 1, amenable to a simple partition, and all
Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. It provides that in cases the other compulsory heirs manifested
where the heirs disagree as to the partition of the estate their desire for an expeditious
and no extrajudicial settlement is possible, then an settlement of the estate of the
ordinary action for partition may be resorted to, as in this deceased Antonio Avelino, Sr., the
case. This Court has held that where the more same is granted.
expeditious remedy of partition is available to the heirs,
then the heirs or the majority of them may not be "WHEREFORE, the petition is
compelled to submit to administration proceedings. The converted into judicial partition of the
trial court appropriately converted petitioner's action for estate of deceased Antonio Avelino,
letters of administration into a suit for judicial partition, Sr. The parties are directed to submit
upon motion of the private respondents. TaCDAH a complete inventory of all the real
and personal properties left by the
deceased. Set the hearing of the
judicial partition on APRIL 13, 1993, at
RESOLUTION 8:30 o'clock in the morning. Notify all
the parties and their counsel of this
assignment.

QUISUMBING, J p: "SO ORDERED." 1

On March 17, 1993, petitioner filed a motion for
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of reconsideration which was denied in an Order dated
the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 16, June 16, 1993. cdasia
1994 in CA-G.R. SP No. 31574 as well as its Resolution
dated April 28, 1994 denying petitioner's Motion for On July 23, 1993, Ma. Socorro filed before the
Reconsideration. The assailed Decision affirmed the Court of Appeals, a petition for certiorari, prohibition,
Order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch and mandamus alleging grave abuse of discretion
78, in Sp. Proc. No. Q-91-10441 converting petitioner's amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
petition for the issuance of letters of administration to an the trial court, in granting private respondents' motion to
action for judicial partition. prcd convert the judicial proceeding for the issuance of letters
of administration to an action for judicial partition. Her
Petitioner Maria Socorro Avelino is a daughter petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 31574.
and compulsory heir of the late Antonio Avelino, Sr., and
his first wife private respondent Angelina Avelino. On February 18, 1994, the respondent appellate
court rendered the assailed decision, stating that the
The other private respondents, Sharon, Antonio "petition is DENIED DUE COURSE" and accordingly
Jr., Tracy, Patrick and Mark Anthony all surnamed dismissed." 2
Avelino are likewise compulsory heirs of Avelino, Sr.

23
 On March 1, 1994, petitioner duly moved for means of a public instrument filed in
reconsideration, but it was denied on April 28, 1994. the office of the register of deeds, and
should they disagree, they may do so
Hence, this petition. Petitioner assigns the in an ordinary action of partition . . .
following errors:
"SECTION 2. Summary
THE COURT OF APPEALS settlement of estates of small value.
ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE — Whenever the gross value of the
LOWER COURT'S FINDING THAT estate of a deceased person, whether
PARTITION IS PROPER UNDER he died testate or intestate, does not
THE PREMISES. exceed ten thousand pesos, and that
ADMINISTRATION SHOULD fact if made to appear to the Regional
BE THE PROPER REMEDY Trial Court having jurisdiction of the
PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF estate by the petition of an interested
THE CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF person and upon hearing, which shall
THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE. 3 be held not less than one (1) month
nor more than three (3) months from
For resolution, we find that given the the date of the last publication of a
circumstances in this case, the sole issue here is notice which shall be published once a
whether respondent appellate court committed an error week for three (3) consecutive weeks
of law and gravely abused its discretion in upholding the in a newspaper of general circulation
trial court's finding that a partition is proper. in the province, and after such other
notice to interested persons as the
Petitioner submits that: First, no partition of the court may direct, the court may
estate is possible in the instant case as no determination proceed summarily, without the
has yet been made of the character and extent of the appointment of an executor or
decedent's estate. She points to the Court's ruling administrator, and without delay, to
in Arcillas v. Montejo, 26 SCRA 197 (1969), where we grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if
held that when the existence of other properties of the any there be, to determine who are
decedent is a matter still to be reckoned with, the persons legally entitled to
administration proceedings are the proper mode of participate in the estate and to
resolving the same. 4 In addition, petitioner contends apportion and divide it among them
that the estate is in danger of being depleted for want of after the payment of such debts of the
an administrator to manage and attend to it. estate as the court shall then find to
Second, petitioner insists that the Rules of be due; and such persons, in their
Court does not provide for conversion of a motion for the own right, if they are lawful age and
issuance of letters of administration to an action for legal capacity, or by their guardians or
judicial partition. The conversion of the motion was, thus, trustees legally appointed and
procedurally inappropriate and should be struck down for qualified, if otherwise, shall thereupon
lack of legal basis. be entitled to receive and enter into
the possession of the portions of the
When a person dies intestate, or, if testate, estate so awarded to them
failed to name an executor in his will or the executor so respectively. The court shall make
named is incompetent, or refuses the trust, or fails to such order as may be just respecting
furnish the bond required by the Rules of Court, then the the costs of the proceedings, and all
decedent's estate shall be judicially administered and the orders and judgments made or
competent court shall appoint a qualified administrator in rendered in the course thereof shall be
the order established in Section 6 of Rule 78. 5 The recorded in the office of the clerk, and
exceptions to this rule are found in Sections 1 and 2 of the order of partition or award, if it
Rule 74 6 which provide: LexLib involves real estate, shall be recorded
in the proper register's office."
"SECTION 1. Extrajudicial
settlement by agreement between The heirs succeed immediately to all of the
heirs. — If the decedent left no will rights and properties of the deceased at the moment of
and no debts and the heirs are all of the latter's death. 7 Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of
age or the minors are represented by Court, allows heirs to divide the estate among
their judicial or legal representatives themselves without need of delay and risks of being
duly authorized for the purpose, the dissipated. When a person dies without leaving pending
parties may, without securing letters of obligations, his heirs are not required to submit the
administration, divide the estate property for judicial administration, nor apply for the
among themselves as they see fit by appointment of an administrator by the court. 8
24
 We note that the Court of Appeals found that in
this case "the decedent left no debts and the heirs and
legatees are all of age." 9 With this finding, it is our view
that Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court should
apply. prcd
In a last-ditch effort to justify the need for an
administrator, petitioner insists that there is nothing to
partition yet, as the nature and character of the estate
have yet to be determined. We find, however, that a
complete inventory of the estate may be done during the
partition proceedings, especially since the estate has no
debts. Hence, the Court of Appeals committed no
reversible error when it ruled that the lower court did not
err in converting petitioner's action for letters of
administration into an action for judicial partition.
Nor can we sustain petitioner's argument that
the order of the trial court converting an action for letters
of administration to one for judicial partition has no basis
in the Rules of Court, hence procedurally infirm. The
basis for the trial court's order is Section 1, Rule 74 of
the Rules of Court. It provides that in cases where the
heirs disagree as to the partition of the estate and no
extrajudicial settlement is possible, then an ordinary
action for partition may be resorted to, as in this case.
We have held that where the more expeditious remedy
of partition is available to the heirs, then the heirs or the
majority of them may not be compelled to submit to
administration proceedings. 10 The trial court
appropriately converted petitioner's action for letters of
administration into a suit for judicial partition, upon
motion of the private respondents. No reversible error
may be attributed to the Court of Appeals when it found
the trial court's action procedurally in order. Cdpr
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of
merit, and the assailed decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 31574 are
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
||| (Avelino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115181
(Resolution), [March 31, 2000], 385 PHIL 1014-1022)

25
 argue that when Simon died intestate, his children
agreed to partition his estate such that the property
6. LANUZA, ET. AL. V. FELIX LUNA, JR., ET. AL.,, situated in Magogon, Camalig, Albay went to
GR 229775,3/11/19 Genoviva and the parcel of land located in Ting-ting,
Taloto, Camalig, Albay went to Heriberto. On the
[G.R. No. 229775. March 11, 2019.] other hand, the subject property was the joint share
of Juan and Felisa who subsequently executed a
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale on May
LILIBETH ESPINAS-LANUZA, ONEL 14, 1966, conveying the subject property to
ESPINAS, as heirs of LEOPOLDO Leopoldo. CHTAIc
ESPINAS, and the MUNICIPAL
ASSESSOR OF DARAGA, The RTC Ruling
ALBAY, petitioners, vs. FELIX LUNA,
JR., ARMANDO VELASCO and In a Decision dated December 2, 2014, the
ANTONIO VELASCO, as heirs of RTC ruled that the co-owners of Simon's properties
SIMON VELASCO, respondents. were his children, Genoviva, Felisa, Juan and
Heriberto. It held that as co-owners of the subject
property, Felisa and Juan enjoyed full ownership of
their portions and they had the right to alienate the
DECISION same. The trial court added that the sale by Felisa
and Juan of their respective undivided shares in the
co-ownership was valid and the vendee, Leopoldo,
became the owner of the shares sold to him. It
J.C. REYES, JR., J p: concluded that the heirs of Heriberto and Genoviva
were co-owners of Leopoldo in the subject property.
Assailed in this petition for review The fallo reads:
on certiorari are the June 13, 2016 Decision 1 and
the January 26, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of WHEREFORE, the
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 104306 which evidence for the [petitioners] not
affirmed the December 2, 2014 Decision 3 of the having been preponderant on their
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Legazpi City, Branch 1 claim, the court rules in favor of the
in Civil Case No. 10955, a case for annulment of [respondents] and now declare that
extrajudicial settlement. [respondents] FELIX LUNA, JR.,
ARMANDO VELASCO and
ANTONIO VELASCO, are co-
The Antecedents owners with [petitioners]
LILIBETH ESPINAS-LANUZA and
ONEL ESPINAS, of Cadastral Lot
During his lifetime, Simon Velasco (Simon) No. 13507 situated in the
was the owner of several properties including the Municipality of Daraga, Albay.
land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
No. 20630, situated in Namantao, Daraga, Albay By whatever manner
(subject property). Simon had four children, namely, Cadastral Lot No. 13507 is listed for
Heriberto Velasco (Heriberto), Genoviva Velasco tax purposes in the Office of the
(Genoviva), 4 Felisa Velasco (Felisa), 5 and Juan Municipal Assessor of Daraga,
Velasco (Juan). Felix Luna, Jr. (Felix), is the son of Albay the same does not alter the
Genoviva, while Armando Velasco and Antonio fact that it is a parcel of land in co-
Velasco are the children of Heriberto (collectively, ownership.
respondents). Defendants' counterclaim is
Respondents allege that Juan and Felisa, dismissed for lack of merit.
through deceit, connivance, and misrepresentation, SO ORDERED. 6
executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and
Sale dated May 14, 1966, which adjudicated the The CA Ruling
subject property to Leopoldo Espinas (Leopoldo),
son of Felisa. They further contend that they In a Decision dated June 13, 2016, the CA
discovered the fraud in 2010 when they came to adjudged that Heriberto and Genoviva were
know that Tax Declaration No. 02-040-0147 was excluded in the execution of the Deed of
issued in Leopoldo's name. Extrajudicial Settlement entered into by Juan and
Felisa as there was no showing that Heriberto and
In their defense, Lilibeth Espinas-Lanuza Genoviva were already deceased when the deed
and Onel Espinas (petitioners), children of Leopoldo, was executed. It noted that the extrajudicial
26
settlement adjudicated and sold properties which still BEEN COMMITTED
formed part of the estate of Simon and were, AGAINST THE EXCLUDED
therefore, co-owned by his heirs. The appellate court HEIRS. 8
emphasized that under Section 1, Rule 74 of
Petitioners argue that all of Simon's children
the Rules of Court, no extrajudicial settlement shall
were given their respective hereditary shares from
be binding upon any person who has not
the estate; that the property situated in Magogon,
participated therein or had no notice thereof. It
Camalig, Albay went to Genoviva, while the property
opined that fraud had been committed against the
situated in Ting-ting, Taloto, Camalig, Albay went to
excluded heirs, thus, the Deed of Extrajudicial
Heriberto; that the subject property was given to
Settlement and Sale must be annulled. The CA
Juan and Felisa as their share in the estate; that
disposed the case in this wise:
Juan and Felisa knew that their brother and sister
WHEREFORE, premises had already been given their due shares in the
considered, the instant appeal estate of Simon, thus, when they sold the subject
is DENIED for lack of merit. EATCcI property to Leopoldo, they no longer deemed it
necessary to have Genoviva and Heriberto sign the
SO ORDERED. 7
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale; that the
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but land given to Juan and Felisa was under the name
the same was denied by the CA in a Resolution of Simon, thus, they had to execute a deed of
dated January 26, 2017. Hence, this petition for extrajudicial settlement in order to transfer the
review on certiorari, wherein petitioners raised the subject property to Leopoldo; that the distribution of
following errors: Simon's properties shows that there had been a
partition; that the heirs of Simon had been in
I. THE [CA] ERRED AND GRAVELY possession of their respective hereditary shares; and
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION that Genoviva and Heriberto never questioned the
IN UPHOLDING THE ownership of Juan and Felisa during their lifetime
FINDINGS OF THE RTC- nor the sale made in favor of Leopoldo. 9
ALBAY, BRANCH 1 THAT
FELIX LUNA, JR., ARMANDO In their Comment, 10 respondents counter
VELASCO AND ANTONIO that a deed of extrajudicial partition executed without
VELASCO ARE CO- including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge
OWNERS WITH of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and
[PETITIONERS] LILIBETH vicious; and that after the death of Simon, his
ESPINAS-LANUZA AND children never partitioned his estate. DHITCc
ONEL ESPINAS OF
In their Reply, 11 petitioners contend that "a
CADASTRAL LOT NO. 13507
parol partition may also be sustained on the ground
SITUATED IN THE
that the parties thereto have acquiesced in and
MUNICIPALITY OF DARAGA,
ratified the partition by taking possession in
ALBAY[;]
severalty, exercising acts of ownership with respect
II. HAT THE [CA] ERRED AND thereto, or otherwise recognizing the existence of
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS the partition:" 12 that for more than 44 years, no one
DISCRETION IN IGNORING among the heirs of Simon ever bothered to question
THE ACTUAL PARTITION Leopoldo's open possession of the subject property
ALREADY DONE BY which was the joint hereditary share of Felisa and
GENOVIVA, HERIBERTO, Juan; that Leopoldo's open and notorious
FELISA AND JUAN, ALL possession of the subject property for 44 years
SURNAMED VELASCO supports the presumption that there was already an
LONG BEFORE THE SALE actual partition among the heirs of Simon.
OF LOT NO. 13507 IN
FAVOR OF LEOPOLDO
ESPINAS ON MAY 14,1966[; The Court's Ruling
and]
III. THAT THE [CA] ERRED AND The petition is meritorious.
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION WHEN IT Partition is the separation, division and
IGNORED THE PRESENCE assignment of a thing held in common among those
OF LACHES AND to whom it may belong. 13 It may be effected
PRESCRIPTION IN extrajudicially by the heirs themselves through a
PETITIONERS' FAVOR public instrument filed before the register of
ALLEGING FRAUD HAS deeds. 14
27
 However, as between the parties, a public performed the
instrument is neither constitutive nor an inherent partition agreement,
element of a contract of partition. 15 Since that equity will
registration serves as constructive notice to third confirm such
persons, an oral partition by the heirs is valid if no partition and in a
creditors are affected. 16 Moreover, even the proper case decree
requirement of a written memorandum under the title in accordance
statute of frauds does not apply to partitions effected with the possession
by the heirs where no creditors are involved in severalty.
considering that such transaction is not a
In
conveyance of property resulting in change of
numerous cases it
ownership but merely a designation and segregation
has been held or
of that part which belongs to each heir. 17
stated that parol
Every act which is intended to put an end to partitions may be
indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees sustained on the
is deemed to be a partition, although it should ground of estoppel
purport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, or of the parties to
any other transaction. 18 Furthermore, in Hernandez assert the rights of
v. Andal, 19 the Court explained that: a tenant in common
as to parts of land
On general principle, independent
divided by parol
and in spite of the statute of frauds,
partition as to which
courts of equity have enforced oral
possession in
partition when it has been
severalty was taken
completely or partly performed.
and acts of
Regardless individual ownership
of whether a parol were exercised.
partition or And a court of
agreement to equity will recognize
partition is valid and the agreement and
enforceable at law, decree it to be valid
equity will in proper and effectual for the
cases, where the purpose of
parol partition has concluding the right
actually been of the parties as
consummated by between each other
the taking of to hold their
possession in respective parts in
severalty and the severalty. cEaSHC
exercise of
A parol
ownership by the
partition may also
parties of the
be sustained on the
respective portions
ground that the
set off to each,
parties thereto have
recognize and
acquiesced in and
enforce such parol
ratified the partition
partition and the
by taking
rights of the parties
possession in
thereunder. Thus, it
severalty,
has been held or
exercising acts of
stated in a number
ownership with
of cases involving
respect thereto, or
an oral partition
otherwise
under which the
recognizing the
parties went into
existence of the
possession,
partition.
exercised acts of
ownership, or A number
otherwise partly of cases have

28
 specifically applied were already given their respective shares in the
the doctrine of part estate. Hence, it can be gleaned unerringly that the
performance, or heirs of Simon agreed to orally partition his estate
have stated that a among themselves, as evinced by their possession
part performance is of the inherited premises, their construction of
necessary, to take a improvements thereon, and their having declared in
parol partition out of their names for taxation purposes their respective
the operation of the shares. Actual possession and exercise of dominion
statute of frauds. It over definite portions of the property in accordance
has been held that with an alleged partition are considered strong proof
where there was a of an oral partition. 21
partition in fact
In addition, a possessor of real estate
between tenants in
property is presumed to have title thereto unless the
common, and a part
adverse claimant establishes a better right. 22 Also,
performance, a
under Article 541 of the Civil Code, one who
court of equity
possesses in the concept of an owner has in his
would have regard
favor the legal presumption that he possesses with a
to and enforce such
just title, and he cannot be obliged to show or prove
partition agreed to
it. Moreover, Article 433 of the Civil Code provides
by the parties.
that actual possession under a claim of ownership
In Maglucot-Aw v. Maglucot, 20 the Court raises a disputable presumption of ownership. Here,
declared, viz.: aside from respondents' bare claim that they are co-
owners of the subject property, they failed to adduce
Partition may be inferred
proof that the heirs of Simon did not actually partition
from circumstances sufficiently
his estate.
strong to support the presumption.
Thus, after a long possession in Finally, laches has set in against
severalty, a deed of partition may be respondents, precluding their right to recover the
presumed. It has been held that subject property. In De Vera-Cruz v. Miguel, 23 the
recitals in deeds, possession and Court declared:
occupation of land, improvements
Laches has been defined as
made thereon for a long series of
such neglect or omission to assert a
years, and acquiescence for 60
right, taken in conjunction with lapse
years, furnish sufficient evidence
of time and other circumstances
that there was an actual partition of
causing prejudice to an adverse
land either by deed or by
party, as will operate as a bar in
proceedings in the probate court,
equity. It is a delay in the assertion
which had been lost and were not
of a right which works disadvantage
recorded.
to another because of the inequity
In the case at bar, it has been shown that founded on some change in the
upon the death of Simon, his children, Genoviva, condition or relations of the property
Heriberto, Juan and Felisa, orally partitioned the or parties. It is based on public
estate among themselves, with each one of them policy which, for the peace of
possessing their respective shares and exercising society, ordains that relief will be
acts of ownership. Respondents did not dispute that denied to a stale demand which
the property situated in Magogon, Camalig, Albay otherwise could be a valid claim. It is
went to Genoviva while the property situated in Ting- different from and applies
ting, Taloto, Camalig, Albay went to Heriberto. independently of prescription. While
Further, they did not raise any objection to the fact prescription is concerned with the
that the subject property was given to Juan and fact of delay, laches is concerned
Felisa as their share in Simon's estate. It must be with the effect of delay. Prescription
emphasized that no one among the children of is a matter of time; laches is
Simon disturbed the status quo which has been principally a question of inequity of
going on from the year 1966. To be sure, Genoviva permitting a claim to be enforced,
and Heriberto were not without knowledge that the this inequity being founded on some
subject property was transferred to Leopoldo and change in the condition of the
that the latter had introduced improvements thereon. property or the relation of the
They could have easily questioned the transfer, but parties. Prescription is statutory;
they chose to remain silent precisely because they laches is not. Laches applies in

29
 equity, whereas prescription applies WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
at law. Prescription is based on a The June 13, 2016 Decision and the January 26,
fixed time, laches is not. Laches 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
means the failure or neglect for an CV No. 104306 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A
unreasonable and unexplained new judgment is hereby entered:
length of time, to do that which, by
1) Declaring the land covered by Original
exercising due diligence, could or
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 20630,
should have been done earlier; it is
situated in Namantao, Daraga,
negligence or omission to assert a
Albay as the share of Juan Velasco
right within a reasonable time,
and Felisa Velasco in the estate of
warranting the presumption that the
Simon Velasco; and
party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned or declined to assert it. 2) Declaring petitioners as lawful possessors
(Citations omitted) CTIEac of the property covered by Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 20630,
The elements of laches are: (1) conduct on
situated in Namantao, Daraga,
the part of the defendant, or one under whom he
Albay by virtue of the Deed of
claims, giving rise to the situation that led to the
Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale
complaint and for which the complaint seeks a
executed by Juan Velasco and
remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant's
Felisa Velasco in favor of Leopoldo
rights, having had knowledge or notice of the
Espinas, petitioners' predecessor-in-
defendant's conduct and having been afforded an
interest. SaCIDT
opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge
or notice on the part of the defendant that the SO ORDERED.
complainant would assert the right on which he
||| (Espinas-Lanuza v. Luna, Jr., G.R. No. 229775,
bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the
defendant in the event relief is accorded to the [March 11, 2019])
complainant, or the suit is not held barred. 24
In this case, there is no question on the
presence of the first element of laches. The object of
respondents' complaint before the trial court was to
annul the extrajudicial settlement in order to recover
their shares in the subject property, which is
presently in the hands of petitioners. The second
element of delay is also present in the case at bar.
Respondents' suit was instituted in 2010, 44 years
after the property was conveyed to Leopoldo in
1966. Again, respondents' predecessors-in-interest,
Genoviva and Heriberto, could not have been
unaware of Leopoldo's open and continuous
possession of the subject property. The third
element is also present in this case. Petitioners had
no inkling of respondents' intent to possess the
subject property considering that Simon's children
never contested the conveyance of the subject
property to Leopoldo. As to the fourth element of
laches, it goes without saying that petitioners will be
prejudiced if respondents' complaint is accorded
relief, or not held barred. Needless to say, laches
has set in against respondents, precluding their right
to recover the subject property.
Accordingly, considering that Felisa and
Juan already owned the subject property at the time
they sold the same to Leopoldo on May 14, 1966,
having been assigned such property pursuant to the
oral partition of the estate of Simon effected by his
heirs, petitioners are entitled to actual possession
thereof.

30
 CORONA, J p:

7. DELGADO VDA. DE LA ROSA V. HRS. OF In this petition for review on certiorari,

MARCIANA VDA. DE DAMIAN, 480 SCRA 334 petitioners seek to reinstate the May 11, 1990
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
[G.R. No. 155733. January 27, 2006.] Branch 55, 4 in SP Case No. 97668, which was
reversed and set aside by the Court of Appeals in its
decision 5 dated October 24, 2002.
IN THE MATTER OF THE
INTESTATE ESTATES OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE
DECEASED JOSEFA DELGADO This case concerns the settlement of the
AND GUILLERMO RUSTIA intestate estates of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa
Delgado. 6 The main issue in this case is relatively
simple: who, between petitioners and respondents,
CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DE are the lawful heirs of the decedents. However, it is
LA ROSA and other HEIRS OF LUIS attended by several collateral issues that complicate
DELGADO, namely, HEIRS OF its resolution.
CONCHA VDA. DE AREVALO,
HEIRS OF LUISA DELGADO VDA. The claimants to the estates of Guillermo
DE DANAO, ANGELA DELGADO Rustia and Josefa Delgado may be divided into two
ARESPACOCHAGA, TERESA groups: (1) the alleged heirs of Josefa Delgado,
DELGADO PERLAS, CAROLINA consisting of her half- and full-blood siblings,
DELGADO-ARESPACOCHAGA, nephews and nieces, and grandnephews and
RODOLFO DELGADO, BENJAMIN grandnieces, and (2) the alleged heirs of Guillermo
DELGADO, GLICERIA DELGADO Rustia, particularly, his sisters, 7 his nephews and
and CLEOFAS DELGADO; and nieces, 8 his illegitimate child, 9 and the de
HEIRS OF GORGONIO DELGADO, facto adopted child 10 (ampun-ampunan) of the
namely, RAMON DELGADO decedents.
CAMPO, CARLOS DELGADO THE ALLEGED HEIRS OF JOSEFA DELGADO
CAMPO, CLARITA DELGADO
CAMPO-REIZA, YOLANDA The deceased Josefa Delgado was the
DELGADO ENCINAS, FELISA daughter of Felisa 11 Delgado by one Lucio Campo.
DELGADO CAMPO-ENCINAS and Aside from Josefa, five other children were born to
MELINDA DELGADO CAMPO- the couple, namely, Nazario, Edilberta, Jose,
MADARANG, petitioners, vs. HEIRS Jacoba, and Gorgonio, all surnamed Delgado. Felisa
OF MARCIANA RUSTIA VDA. DE Delgado was never married to Lucio Campo, hence,
DAMIAN, namely, GUILLERMO R. Josefa and her full-blood siblings were all natural
DAMIAN and JOSE R. DAMIAN; children of Felisa Delgado. ITcCSA
HEIRS OF HORTENCIA RUSTIA However, Lucio Campo was not the first and
CRUZ, namely, TERESITA CRUZ- only man in Felisa Delgado's life. Before him was
SISON, HORACIO R. CRUZ, Ramon Osorio 12 with whom Felisa had a son, Luis
JOSEFINA CRUZ-RODIL, AMELIA Delgado. But, unlike her relationship with Lucio
CRUZ-ENRIQUEZ and FIDEL R. Campo which was admittedly one without the benefit
CRUZ, JR.; HEIRS OF ROMAN of marriage, the legal status of Ramon Osorio's and
RUSTIA, SR., namely, JOSEFINA Felisa Delgado's union is in dispute.
RUSTIA ALBANO, VIRGINIA
RUSTIA PARAISO, ROMAN The question of whether Felisa Delgado and
RUSTIA, JR., SERGIO RUSTIA, Ramon Osorio ever got married is crucial to the
FRANCISCO RUSTIA, LETICIA claimants because the answer will determine
RUSTIA-MIRANDA; and whether their successional rights fall within the ambit
GUILLERMINA RUSTIA, as of the rule against reciprocal intestate succession
Oppositors; 1 and GUILLERMA between legitimate and illegitimate relatives. 13 If
RUSTIA, as Ramon Osorio and Felisa Delgado had been validly
Intervenor, 2 respondents. 3 married, then their only child Luis Delgado was a
legitimate half-blood brother of Josefa Delgado and
therefore excluded from the latter's intestate estate.
He and his heirs would be barred by the principle of
DECISION absolute separation between the legitimate and
illegitimate families. Conversely, if the couple were
never married, Luis Delgado and his heirs would be

31
entitled to inherit from Josefa Delgado's intestate 2. Philippine Passport No. 4767
estate, as they would all be within the illegitimate issued to Josefa D. Rustia on
line. June 25, 1947;
Petitioners allege that Ramon Osorio and 3. Veterans Application for Pension or
Felisa Delgado were never married. In support Compensation for Disability
thereof, they assert that no evidence was ever Resulting from Service in the
presented to establish it, not even so much as an Active Military or Naval Forces
allegation of the date or place of the alleged of the United States- Claim
marriage. What is clear, however, is that Felisa No. C-4, 004, 503 (VA Form
retained the surname Delgado. So did Luis, her son 526) filed with the Veterans
with Ramon Osorio. Later on, when Luis got married, Administration of the United
his Partida de Casamiento 14 stated that he was States of America by Dr.
"hijo natural de Felisa Delgado" (the natural child of Guillermo J. Rustia wherein
Felisa Delgado), 15 significantly omitting any Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia himself
mention of the name and other circumstances of his [swore] to his marriage to
father. 16 Nevertheless, oppositors (now Josefa Delgado in Manila on 3
respondents) insist that the absence of a record of June 1919; 18
the alleged marriage did not necessarily mean that
no marriage ever took place. 4. Titles to real properties in the name
of Guillermo Rustia indicated
Josefa Delgado died on September 8, 1972 that he was married to Josefa
without a will. She was survived by Guillermo Rustia Delgado.
and some collateral relatives, the petitioners herein.
Several months later, on June 15, 1973, Guillermo THE ALLEGED HEIRS OF GUILLERMO RUSTIA
Rustia executed an affidavit of self-adjudication of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado never
the remaining properties comprising her estate. had any children. With no children of their own, they
THE MARRIAGE OF GUILLERMO RUSTIA AND took into their home the youngsters Guillermina
JOSEFA DELGADO Rustia Rustia and Nanie Rustia. These children,
never legally adopted by the couple, were what was
Sometime in 1917, Guillermo Rustia known in the local dialect as ampun-ampunan.
proposed marriage to Josefa Delgado 17 but
whether a marriage in fact took place is disputed. During his life with Josefa, however,
According to petitioners, the two eventually lived Guillermo Rustia did manage to father an illegitimate
together as husband and wife but were never child, 19 the intervenor-respondent Guillerma Rustia,
married. To prove their assertion, petitioners point with one Amparo Sagarbarria. According to
out that no record of the contested marriage existed Guillerma, Guillermo Rustia treated her as his
in the civil registry. Moreover, a baptismal certificate daughter, his own flesh and blood, and she enjoyed
naming Josefa Delgado as one of the sponsors open and continuous possession of that status from
referred to her as "Señorita" or unmarried woman. her birth in 1920 until her father's demise. In fact,
Josefa Delgado's obituary which was prepared by
The oppositors (respondents here), on the Guillermo Rustia, named the intervenor-respondent
other hand, insist that the absence of a marriage as one of their children. Also, her report card from
certificate did not of necessity mean that no the University of Santo Tomas identified Guillermo
marriage transpired. They maintain that Guillermo Rustia as her parent/guardian. 20
Rustia and Josefa Delgado were married on June 3,
1919 and from then on lived together as husband Oppositors (respondents here) nonetheless
and wife until the death of Josefa on September 8, posit that Guillerma Rustia has no interest in the
1972. During this period spanning more than half a intestate estate of Guillermo Rustia as she was
century, they were known among their relatives and never duly acknowledged as an illegitimate child.
friends to have in fact been married. To support their They contend that her right to compulsory
proposition, oppositors presented the following acknowledgement prescribed when Guillermo died
pieces of evidence: in 1974 and that she cannot claim voluntary
acknowledgement since the documents she
1. Certificate of Identity No. 9592 presented were not the authentic writings prescribed
dated [December 1, 1944] by the new Civil Code. 21
issued to Mrs. Guillermo J.
Rustia by Carlos P. Romulo, On January 7, 1974, more than a year after
then Resident Commissioner the death of Josefa Delgado, Guillermo Rustia filed a
to the United States of the petition for the adoption 22 of their ampun-
Commonwealth of the ampunan Guillermina Rustia. He stated under oath
Philippines; "[t]hat he ha[d] no legitimate, legitimated,
32
acknowledged natural children or natural children by claimants to the estate of the late
legal fiction." 23 The petition was overtaken by his Josefa Delgado listed in the Petitions,
death on February 28, 1974. and enumerated elsewhere in this
Decision, are hereby declared as the
Like Josefa Delgado, Guillermo Rustia died
only legal heirs of the said Josefa
without a will. He was survived by his sisters
Delgado who died intestate in the City
Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian and Hortencia
of Manila on September 8, 1972, and
Rustia-Cruz, and by the children of his predeceased
entitled to partition the same among
brother Roman Rustia Sr., namely, Josefina Rustia
themselves in accordance with the
Albano, Virginia Rustia Paraiso, Roman Rustia, Jr.,
proportions referred to in this
Sergio Rustia, Francisco Rustia and Leticia Rustia
Decision.
Miranda. 24
ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS Similarly, the intervenor
Guillerma S. Rustia is hereby declared
On May 8, 1975, Luisa Delgado vda. as the sole and only surviving heir of
de Danao, the daughter of Luis Delgado, filed the the late Dr. Guillermo Rustia, and
original petition for letters of administration of the thus, entitled to the entire estate of the
intestate estates of the "spouses Josefa Delgado said decedent, to the exclusion of the
and Guillermo Rustia" with the RTC of Manila, oppositors and the other parties
Branch 55. 25 This petition was opposed by the hereto.
following: (1) the sisters of Guillermo Rustia, namely,
Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian and Hortencia The Affidavit of Self-
Rustia-Cruz; 26 (2) the heirs of Guillermo Rustia's Adjudication of the estate of Josefa
late brother, Roman Rustia, Sr., and (3) the ampun- Delgado executed by the late
ampunan Guillermina Rustia Rustia. The opposition Guillermo J. Rustia on June 15, 1973
was grounded on the theory that Luisa Delgado vda. is hereby SET ASIDE and declared of
de Danao and the other claimants were barred no force and effect.
under the law from inheriting from their illegitimate As the estates of both
half-blood relative Josefa Delgado. dece[d]ents have not as yet been
In November of 1975, Guillerma Rustia filed settled, and their settlement [is]
a motion to intervene in the proceedings, claiming considered consolidated in this
she was the only surviving descendant in the direct proceeding in accordance with law, a
line of Guillermo Rustia. Despite the objections of single administrator therefor is both
the oppositors (respondents herein), the motion was proper and necessary, and, as the
granted. EaCSHI petitioner Carlota Delgado Vda. de
dela Rosa has established her right to
On April 3, 1978, the original petition for the appointment as administratrix of
letters of administration was amended to state that the estates, the Court hereby
Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia APPOINTS her as the
were never married but had merely lived together as ADMINISTRATRIX of the intestate
husband and wife. estate of the decedent JOSEFA
On January 24, 1980, oppositors DELGADO in relation to the estate of
(respondents herein) filed a motion to dismiss the DR. GUILLERMO J. RUSTIA.
petition in the RTC insofar as the estate of Guillermo
Accordingly, let the
Rustia was concerned. The motion was denied on
corresponding LETTERS OF
the ground that the interests of the petitioners and
ADMINISTRATION issue to the
the other claimants remained in issue and should be
petitioner CARLOTA DELGADO VDA.
properly threshed out upon submission of evidence.
DE DE LA ROSA upon her filing of the
On March 14, 1988, Carlota Delgado vda. requisite bond in the sum of FIVE
de de la Rosa substituted for her sister, Luisa HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
Delgado vda. de Danao, who had died on May 18, (P500,000.00).
1987.
Finally, oppositor
On May 11, 1990, the RTC appointed GUILLERMINA RUSTIA RUSTIA is
Carlota Delgado vda. de de la Rosa as administratrix hereby ordered to cease and desist
of both estates. 27 The dispositive portion of the from her acts of administration of the
decision read: subject estates, and is likewise
ordered to turn over to the appointed
WHEREFORE, in view of all
administratix all her collections of the
the foregoing, petitioner and her co-
rentals and income due on the assets
33
 of the estates in question, including all xxx xxx xxx
documents, papers, records and titles
pertaining to such estates to the A review of the trial court's
petitioner and appointed administratix decision is needed.
CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DE xxx xxx xxx
LA ROSA, immediately upon receipt of
this Decision. The same oppositor is WHEREFORE, in view of the
hereby required to render an foregoing considerations, the Court
accounting of her actual administration hereby AFFIRMS the Resolution
of the estates in controversy within a dated November 27, 1991 of the Court
period of sixty (60) days from receipt of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 23415,
hereof. for the APPROVAL of the private
respondents' Record on Appeal and
SO ORDERED. 28 the CONTINUANCE of the appeal
On May 20, 1990, oppositors filed an appeal from the Manila, Branch LV Regional
which was denied on the ground that the record on Trial Court's May 11, 1990 decision.
appeal was not filed on time. 29 They then filed a SO ORDERED.
petition for certiorari and mandamus 30 which was
dismissed by the Court of Appeals. 31 However, on Acting on the appeal, the Court of
motion for reconsideration and after hearing the Appeals 34 partially set aside the trial court's
parties' oral arguments, the Court of Appeals decision. Upon motion for reconsideration, 35 the
reversed itself and gave due course to oppositors' Court of Appeals amended its earlier
appeal in the interest of substantial justice. 32 decision. 36 The dispositive portion of the amended
decision read:
In a petition for review to this Court,
petitioners assailed the resolution of the Court of With the further modification,
Appeals, on the ground that oppositors' failure to file our assailed decision
the record on appeal within the reglementary period is RECONSIDERED and VACATED.
was a jurisdictional defect which nullified the appeal. Consequently, the decision of the trial
On October 10, 1997, this Court allowed the court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
continuance of the appeal. The pertinent portion of A new one is
our decision 33 read: hereby RENDERED declaring: 1.) Dr.
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado
As a rule, periods prescribed Rustia to have been legally married;
to do certain acts must be followed. 2.) the intestate estate of Dr.
However, under exceptional Guillermo Rustia, Jacoba Delgado-
circumstances, a delay in the filing of Encinas and the children of Gorgonio
an appeal may be excused on Delgado (Campo) entitled to partition
grounds of substantial justice. among themselves the intestate estate
xxx xxx xxx of Josefa D. Rustia in accordance with
the proportion referred to in this
The respondent court likewise decision; 3.) the oppositors-appellants
pointed out the trial court's as the legal heirs of the late Dr.
pronouncements as to certain matters Guillermo Rustia and thereby entitled
of substance, relating to the to partition his estate in accordance
determination of the heirs of the with the proportion referred to herein;
decedents and the party entitled to the and 4.) the intervenor-appellee
administration of their estate, which Guillerma S. Rustia as ineligible to
were to be raised in the appeal, but inherit from the late Dr. Guillermo
were barred absolutely by the denial Rustia; thus revoking her appointment
of the record on appeal upon too as administratrix of his estate.
technical ground of late filing.
The letters of administration of
xxx xxx xxx the intestate estate of Dr. Guillermo
Rustia in relation to the intestate
In this instance, private
estate of Josefa Delgado shall issue to
respondents' intention to raise valid
the nominee of the oppositors-
issues in the appeal is apparent and
appellants upon his or her qualification
should not have been construed as an
and filing of the requisite bond in the
attempt to delay or prolong the
administration proceedings.
34
 sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND presumptions are satisfactory if
PESOS (P500,000.00). uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other
Oppositor-appellant evidence:
Guillermina Rustia Rustia is hereby
ordered to cease and desist from her xxx xxx xxx
acts of administration of the subject
estates and to turn over to the (aa) That a man and a woman
appointed administrator all her deporting themselves as husband and
collections of the rentals and incomes wife have entered into a lawful
due on the assets of the estates in contract of marriage;
question, including all documents, xxx xxx xxx
papers, records and titles pertaining to
such estates to the appointed In this case, several circumstances give rise
administrator, immediately upon notice to the presumption that a valid marriage existed
of his qualification and posting of the between Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado.
requisite bond, and to render an Their cohabitation of more than 50 years cannot be
accounting of her (Guillermina Rustia doubted. Their family and friends knew them to be
Rustia) actual administration of the married. Their reputed status as husband and wife
estates in controversy within a period was such that even the original petition for letters of
of sixty (60) days from notice of the administration filed by Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao
administrator's qualification and in 1975 referred to them as "spouses."
posting of the bond.
Yet, petitioners maintain that Josefa
The issue of the validity of the Delgado and Guillermo Rustia had simply lived
affidavit of self-adjudication executed together as husband and wife without the benefit of
by Dr. Guillermo Rustia on June 15, marriage. They make much of the absence of a
1973 is REMANDED to the trial court record of the contested marriage, the testimony of a
for further proceedings to determine witness 38 attesting that they were not married, and
the extent of the shares of Jacoba a baptismal certificate which referred to Josefa
Delgado-Encinas and the children of Delgado as "Señorita" or unmarried woman. 39
Gorgonio Delgado (Campo) affected We are not persuaded.
by the said adjudication. cIaCTS
First, although a marriage contract is
Hence, this recourse. considered a primary evidence of marriage, its
The issues for our resolution are: absence is not always proof that no marriage in fact
took place. 40 Once the presumption of marriage
1. whether there was a valid marriage arises, other evidence may be presented in support
between Guillermo Rustia and thereof. The evidence need not necessarily or
Josefa Delgado; directly establish the marriage but must at least be
enough to strengthen the presumption of marriage.
2. who the legal heirs of the decedents
Here, the certificate of identity issued to Josefa
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa
Delgado as Mrs. Guillermo Rustia, 41 the passport
Delgado are;
issued to her as Josefa D. Rustia, 42 the declaration
3. who should be issued letters of under oath of no less than Guillermo Rustia that he
administration. was married to Josefa Delgado 43 and the titles to
the properties in the name of "Guillermo Rustia
THE MARRIAGE OF GUILLERMO RUSTIA AND married to Josefa Delgado," more than adequately
JOSEFA DELGADO support the presumption of marriage. These are
A presumption is an inference of the public documents which are prima facie evidence of
existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are the facts stated therein. 44 No clear and convincing
permitted to draw from proof of other facts. evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of
Presumptions are classified into presumptions of law the truth of the recitals therein was presented by
and presumptions of fact. Presumptions of law are, petitioners.
in turn, either conclusive or disputable. 37 Second, Elisa vda. de Anson, petitioners'
Rule 131, Section 3 of the Rules of own witness whose testimony they primarily relied
Court provides: upon to support their position, confirmed that
Guillermo Rustia had proposed marriage to Josefa
Sec. 3. Disputable Delgado and that eventually, the two had "lived
presumptions. — The following

35
together as husband and wife." This again could not Suppose, however, that A
but strengthen the presumption of marriage. begets X with B, and Y with another
woman, C; then X and Y would be
Third, the baptismal certificate 45 was
natural brothers and sisters, but of
conclusive proof only of the baptism administered by
half-blood relationship. Can they
the priest who baptized the child. It was no proof of
succeed each other reciprocally?
the veracity of the declarations and statements
contained therein, 46 such as the alleged single or The law prohibits reciprocal
unmarried ("Señorita") civil status of Josefa Delgado succession between illegitimate
who had no hand in its preparation. children and legitimate children of the
Petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of same parent, even though there is
marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado. In unquestionably a tie of blood between
this jurisdiction, every intendment of the law leans them. It seems that to allow an
toward legitimizing matrimony. Persons dwelling illegitimate child to succeed ab
together apparently in marriage are presumed to be intestato (from) another illegitimate
in fact married. This is the usual order of things in child begotten with a parent different
society and, if the parties are not what they hold from that of the former, would be
themselves out to be, they would be living in allowing the illegitimate child greater
constant violation of the common rules of law and rights than a legitimate child.
propriety. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. Notwithstanding this, however, we
Always presume marriage. 47 submit that succession should be
allowed, even when the illegitimate
THE LAWFUL HEIRS OF JOSEFA DELGADO brothers and sisters are only of the
half-blood. The reason impelling the
To determine who the lawful heirs of Josefa
prohibition on reciprocal successions
Delgado are, the questioned status of the
between legitimate and illegitimate
cohabitation of her mother Felisa Delgado with
families does not apply to the case
Ramon Osorio must first be addressed.
under consideration. That prohibition
As mentioned earlier, presumptions of law has for its basis the difference in
are either conclusive or disputable. Conclusive category between illegitimate and
presumptions are inferences which the law makes legitimate relatives. There is no such
so peremptory that no contrary proof, no matter how difference when all the children are
strong, may overturn them. 48 On the other hand, illegitimate children of the same
disputable presumptions, one of which is the parent, even if begotten with different
presumption of marriage, can be relied on only in the persons. They all stand on the same
absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary. footing before the law, just like
legitimate children of half-blood
Little was said of the cohabitation or alleged
relation. We submit, therefore, that the
marriage of Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio. The
rules regarding succession of
oppositors (now respondents) chose merely to rely
legitimate brothers and sisters should
on the disputable presumption of marriage even in
be applicable to them. Full blood
the face of such countervailing evidence as (1) the
illegitimate brothers and sisters should
continued use by Felisa and Luis (her son with
receive double the portion of half-
Ramon Osorio) of the surname Delgado and (2) Luis
blood brothers and sisters; and if all
Delgado's and Caridad Concepcion's Partida de
are either of the full blood or of the
Casamiento 49 identifying Luis as "hijo natural de
half-blood, they shall share equally. 53
Felisa Delgado" (the natural child of Felisa
Delgado). 50 Here, the above-named siblings of Josefa
All things considered, we rule that these Delgado were related to her by full-blood, except
factors sufficiently overcame the rebuttable Luis Delgado, her half-brother. Nonetheless, since
presumption of marriage. Felisa Delgado and they were all illegitimate, they may inherit from each
Ramon Osorio were never married. Hence, all the other. Accordingly, all of them are entitled to inherit
children born to Felisa Delgado out of her relations from Josefa Delgado.
with Ramon Osorio and Lucio Campo, namely, Luis We note, however, that the petitioners
and his half-blood siblings Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, before us are already the nephews, nieces,
Jacoba, Gorgonio and the decedent Josefa, all grandnephews and grandnieces of Josefa Delgado.
surnamed Delgado, 51 were her natural children. 52 Under Article 972 of the new Civil Code, the right of
Pertinent to this matter is the following representation in the collateral line takes place only
observation: in favor of the children of brothers and sisters
(nephews and nieces). Consequently, it cannot be
36
exercised by grandnephews and Under the old Civil Code (which was in force
grandnieces. 54 Therefore, the only collateral till August 29, 1950), illegitimate children absolutely
relatives of Josefa Delgado who are entitled to had no hereditary rights. This draconian edict was,
partake of her intestate estate are her brothers and however, later relaxed in the new Civil Code which
sisters, or their children who were still alive at the granted certain successional rights to illegitimate
time of her death on September 8, 1972. They have children but only on condition that they were first
a vested right to participate in the recognized or acknowledged by the parent.
inheritance. 55 The records not being clear on this
Under the new law, recognition may be
matter, it is now for the trial court to determine who
compulsory or voluntary. 60 Recognition is
were the surviving brothers and sisters (or their
compulsory in any of the following cases:
children) of Josefa Delgado at the time of her death.
Together with Guillermo Rustia, 56 they are entitled (1) in cases of rape, abduction or
to inherit from Josefa Delgado in accordance with seduction, when the period of
Article 1001 of the new Civil Code: 57 the offense coincides more or
less with that of the
Art. 1001. Should brothers
conception;
and sisters or their children survive
with the widow or widower, the latter (2) when the child is in continuous
shall be entitled to one-half of the possession of status of a child
inheritance and the brothers and of the alleged father (or
sisters or their children to the other mother) 61 by the direct acts
one-half. of the latter or of his family;
Since Josefa Delgado had heirs other than (3) when the child was conceived
Guillermo Rustia, Guillermo could not have validly during the time when the
adjudicated Josefa's estate all to himself. Rule 74, mother cohabited with the
Section 1 of the Rules of Court is clear. Adjudication supposed father;
by an heir of the decedent's entire estate to himself
by means of an affidavit is allowed only if he is (4) when the child has in his favor any
the sole heir to the estate: evidence or proof that the
defendant is his father. 62
SECTION 1. Extrajudicial
settlement by agreement between On the other hand, voluntary recognition may be
heirs. — If the decedent left no will made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before
and no debts and the heirs are all of a court of record or in any authentic writing. 63
age, or the minors are represented by
Intervenor Guillerma sought recognition on
their judicial or legal representatives
two grounds: first, compulsory recognition through
duly authorized for the purpose, the
the open and continuous possession of the status of
parties may, without securing letters of
an illegitimate child and second, voluntary
administration, divide the estate
recognition through authentic writing.
among themselves as they see fit by
means of a public instrument filed in There was apparently no doubt that she
the office of the register of deeds, and possessed the status of an illegitimate child from her
should they disagree, they may do so birth until the death of her putative father Guillermo
in an ordinary action of partition. If Rustia. However, this did not constitute
there is only one heir, he may acknowledgment but a mere ground by which she
adjudicate to himself the estate by could have compelled acknowledgment through the
means of an affidavit filed in the courts. 64 Furthermore, any (judicial) action for
office of the register of deeds. . . . compulsory acknowledgment has a dual limitation:
(emphasis supplied) the lifetime of the child and the lifetime of the
putative parent. 65 On the death of either, the action
THE LAWFUL HEIRS OF GUILLERMO RUSTIA for compulsory recognition can no longer be
Intervenor (now co-respondent) Guillerma filed. 66 In this case, intervenor Guillerma's right to
Rustia is an illegitimate child 58 of Guillermo Rustia. claim compulsory acknowledgment prescribed upon
As such, she may be entitled to successional rights the death of Guillermo Rustia on February 28, 1974.
only upon proof of an admission or recognition of The claim of voluntary recognition
paternity. 59 She, however, claimed the status of an (Guillerma's second ground) must likewise fail. An
acknowledged illegitimate child of Guillermo Rustia authentic writing, for purposes of voluntary
only after the death of the latter on February 28, recognition, is understood as a genuine or
1974 at which time it was already the new Civil indubitable writing of the parent (in this case,
Code that was in effect. Guillermo Rustia). This includes a public instrument
37
or a private writing admitted by the father to be ENTITLEMENT TO LETTERS OF
his. 67 Did intervenor's report card from the ADMINISTRATION
University of Santo Tomas and Josefa Delgado's
An administrator is a person appointed by
obituary prepared by Guillermo Rustia qualify as
the court to administer the intestate estate of the
authentic writings under the new Civil Code?
decedent. Rule 78, Section 6 of the Rules of
Unfortunately not. The report card of intervenor
Court prescribes an order of preference in the
Guillerma did not bear the signature of Guillermo
appointment of an administrator:
Rustia. The fact that his name appears there as
intervenor's parent/guardian holds no weight since Sec. 6. When and to whom
he had no participation in its preparation. Similarly, letters of administration granted. — If
while witnesses testified that it was Guillermo Rustia no executor is named in the will, or the
himself who drafted the notice of death of Josefa executor or executors are
Delgado which was published in the SUNDAY incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to
TIMES on September 10, 1972, that published give a bond, or a person dies
obituary was not the authentic writing contemplated intestate, administration shall be
by the law. What could have been admitted as an granted:
authentic writing was the original manuscript of the
notice, in the handwriting of Guillermo Rustia himself (a) To the surviving husband
and signed by him, not the newspaper clipping of the or wife, as the case
obituary. The failure to present the original signed may be, or next of kin,
manuscript was fatal to intervenor's claim. CSAaDE  or both, in the
discretion of the court,
The same misfortune befalls the ampun- or to such person as
ampunan, Guillermina Rustia Rustia, who was never such surviving
adopted in accordance with law. Although a petition husband or wife, or
for her adoption was filed by Guillermo Rustia, it next of kin, requests
never came to fruition and was dismissed upon the to have appointed, if
latter's death. We affirm the ruling of both the trial competent and willing
court and the Court of Appeals holding her a legal to serve;
stranger to the deceased spouses and therefore not
entitled to inherit from them ab intestato. We quote: (b) If such surviving husband
or wife, as the case
Adoption is a juridical act, a may be, or next of kin,
proceeding in rem, which [created] or the person selected
between two persons a relationship by them, be
similar to that which results from incompetent or
legitimate paternity and filiation. Only unwilling, or if the
an adoption made through the court, husband or widow or
or in pursuance with the procedure next of kin, neglects
laid down under Rule 99 of the Rules for thirty (30) days
of Court is valid in this jurisdiction. It is after the death of the
not of natural law at all, but is wholly person to apply for
and entirely artificial. To establish the administration or to
relation, the statutory requirements request that the
must be strictly carried out, otherwise, administration be
the adoption is an absolute nullity. The granted to some other
fact of adoption is never presumed, person, it may be
but must be affirmatively [proven] by granted to one or
the person claiming its existence. 68 more of the principal
Premises considered, we rule that two of the creditors, if competent
claimants to the estate of Guillermo Rustia, namely, and willing to serve;
intervenor Guillerma Rustia and the ampun- (c) If there is no such creditor
ampunan Guillermina Rustia Rustia, are not lawful competent and willing
heirs of the decedent. Under Article 1002 of the new to serve, it may be
Civil Code, if there are no descendants, ascendants, granted to such other
illegitimate children, or surviving spouse, the person as the court
collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate may select.
of the deceased. Therefore, the lawful heirs of
Guillermo Rustia are the remaining claimants, In the appointment of an administrator, the
consisting of his sisters, 69 nieces and nephews. 70 principal consideration is the interest in the estate of

38
the one to be appointed. 71 The order of preference shares shall pertain to their
does not rule out the appointment of co- estates.
administrators, specially in cases where justice and
equity demand that opposing parties or factions be 4. Letters of administration over the
represented in the management of the estates, 72 a still unsettled intestate estates
situation which obtains here. of Guillermo Rustia and
Josefa Delgado shall issue to
It is in this light that we see fit to appoint joint Carlota Delgado vda. de de la
administrators, in the persons of Carlota Rosa and to a nominee from
Delgado vda. de de la Rosa and a nominee of the among the heirs of Guillermo
nephews and nieces of Guillermo Rustia. They are Rustia, as joint administrators,
the next of kin of the deceased spouses Josefa upon their qualification and
Delgado and Guillermo Rustia, respectively. filing of the requisite bond in
WHEREFORE, the petition (which seeks to such amount as may be
reinstate the May 11, 1990 decision of the RTC determined by the trial court.
Manila, Branch 55) is hereby DENIED. The assailed No pronouncement as to costs. DTIACH
October 24, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals
is AFFIRMED with the following modifications: SO ORDERED.

1. Guillermo Rustia's June 15, 1973 ||| (Vda. de De la Rosa v. Heirs of Rustia, G.R. No.
affidavit of self-adjudication is 155733, [January 27, 2006], 516 PHIL 130-156)
hereby ANNULLED.
2. the intestate estate of Guillermo
Rustia shall inherit half of the
intestate estate of Josefa
Delgado. The remaining half
shall pertain to (a) the full and
half-siblings of Josefa
Delgado who survived her and
(b) the children of any of
Josefa Delgado's full- or half-
siblings who may have
predeceased her, also
surviving at the time of her
death. Josefa Delgado's
grandnephews and
grandnieces are excluded
from her estate. In this
connection, the trial court is
hereby ordered to determine
the identities of the relatives of
Josefa Delgado who are
entitled to share in her estate.
3. Guillermo Rustia's estate (including
its one-half share of Josefa
Delgado's estate) shall be
inherited by Marciana
Rustia vda. de Damian and
Hortencia Rustia Cruz (whose
respective shares shall be per
capita) and the children of the
late Roman Rustia, Sr. (who
survived Guillermo Rustia and
whose respective shares shall
be per stirpes). Considering
that Marciana Rustia vda.
de Damian and Hortencia
Rustia Cruz are now
deceased, their respective
39
 In 2001, Avelina was supposedly made to
sign two (2) documents by her daughter Emelinda
8. REBUSQUILLO AND OROSCO V. SPS Rebusquillo-Gualvez (Emelinda) and her son-in-law
GUALVEZ, GR 204029, 6/4/14 Domingo Gualvez (Domingo), respondents in this
case, on the pretext that the documents were
[G.R. No. 204029. June 4, 2014.] needed to facilitate the titling of the lot. It was only in
2003, so petitioners claim, that Avelina realized that
what she signed was an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
AVELINA ABARIENTOS and a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
REBUSQUILLO [substituted by her respondents.
heirs, except Emelinda R. Gualvez]
and SALVADOR A. As respondents purportedly ignored her
OROSCO, petitioners, vs. SPS. when she tried to talk to them, Avelina sought the
DOMINGO and EMELINDA intervention of the RTC to declare null and void the
REBUSQUILLO GUALVEZ and the two (2) documents in order to reinstate TD 0141 and
CITY ASSESSOR OF LEGAZPI so correct the injustice done to the other heirs of
CITY, respondents. Eulalio.
In their answer, respondents admitted that
the execution of the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and
the Deed of Sale was intended to facilitate the titling
DECISION
of the subject property. Paragraph 9 of their Answer
reads:
Sometime in the year 2001,
VELASCO, JR., J p: [petitioner] Avelina together with the
Before Us is a Petition for Review other heirs of Eulalio Abarientos
on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the brought out the idea to [respondent]
Decision 1 and Resolution 2 dated March 30, 2012 Emelinda Rebusquillo-Gualvez to
and September 25, 2012, respectively, of the Court have the property described in
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 93035, which paragraph 8 of the complaint
reversed and set aside the Decision dated January registered under the Torrens
20, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4 System of Registration. To facilitate
in Legazpi City, in Civil Case No. 10407. the titling of the property, so that
the same could be attractive to
The antecedent facts may be summarized prospective buyers, it was agreed
as follows: that the property's tax declaration
On October 26, 2004, petitioners Avelina could be transferred to
Abarientos Rebusquillo (Avelina) and Salvador [respondents] Spouses
Orosco (Salvador) filed a Complaint for annulment [Emelinda] R. Gualvez and
and revocation of an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication Domingo Gualvez who will spend
dated December 4, 2001 and a Deed of Absolute all the cost of titling subject to
Sale dated February 6, 2002 before the court a quo. reimbursement by all other heirs
In it, petitioners alleged that Avelina was one of the in case the property is sold; That
children of Eulalio Abarientos (Eulalio) and Victoria it was agreed that all the heirs will
Villareal (Victoria). Eulalio died intestate on July 3, be given their corresponding shares
1964, survived by his wife Victoria, six legitimate on the property; That pursuant to
children, and one illegitimate child, namely: (1) said purpose Avelina Abarientos-
Avelina Abarientos-Rebusquillo, petitioner in this Rebusquillo with the knowledge and
case; (2) Fortunata Abarientos-Orosco, the mother consent of the other heirs signed
of petitioner Salvador; (3) Rosalino Abarientos; (4) and executed an Affidavit of Self-
Juan Abarientos; (5) Feliciano Abarientos; (6) Adjudication and a Deed of Absolute
Abraham Abarientos; and (7) Carlos Abarientos. His Sale in favor of [respondents]
wife Victoria eventually died intestate on June 30, Gualvez. In fact, [petitioner] Avelina
1983. TCAHES Rebusquillo was given an advance
sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
On his death, Eulalio left behind an untitled (P50,000.00) by [respondent]
parcel of land in Legazpi City consisting of two spouses and all the delinquent taxes
thousand eight hundred sixty-nine (2,869) square paid by [respondents]. 3 HDCAaS
meters, more or less, which was covered by Tax
Declaration ARP No. (TD) 0141. After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision
dated January 20, 2009 annulling the Affidavit of
40
Self-Adjudication and the Deed of Absolute Sale Assailing the trial court's decision,
executed by Avelina on the grounds that (1) with respondents interposed an appeal with the CA
regard to the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, she was arguing that the Deed of Sale cannot be annulled
not the sole heir of her parents and was not being a public document that has for its object the
therefore solely entitled to their estate; and (2) in the creation and transmission of real rights over the
case of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Avelina did not immovable subject property. The fact that Avelina's
really intend to sell her share in the property as it testimony was not offered in evidence, so
was only executed to facilitate the titling of such respondents argued, the signature on the adverted
property. The dispositive portion of the RTC deed remains as concrete proof of her agreement to
Decision reads: its terms. Lastly, respondents contended that the
Complaint filed by petitioners Avelina and Salvador
WHEREFORE, premises
before the RTC is not the proper remedy provided by
considered, judgment is hereby
law for those compulsory heirs unlawfully deprived of
rendered, as follows:
their inheritance.
1. The subject Affidavit of
Pending the resolution of respondents'
Self-Adjudication of
appeal, Avelina died intestate on September 1, 2009
the Estate of the
leaving behind several living heirs 5 including
Deceased Spouses
respondent Emelinda.
Eulalio Abarientos
and Victoria Villareal, In its Decision dated March 30, 2012, the
dated December 4, appellate court granted the appeal and reversed and
2001 as well as the set aside the Decision of the RTC. The CA held that
subject Deed of the RTC erred in annulling the Affidavit of Self-
Absolute Sale, Adjudication simply on petitioners' allegation of the
notarized on February existence of the heirs of Eulalio, considering that
6, 2002, covering the issues on heirship must be made in administration or
property described in intestate proceedings, not in an ordinary civil action.
par. 8 of the Amended Further, the appellate court observed that the Deed
Complaint are hereby of Absolute Sale cannot be nullified as it is a
ordered ANNULLED; notarized document that has in its favor the
presumption of regularity and is entitled to full faith
2. That defendant City
and credit upon its face.
Assessor's Officer of
Legazpi City is hereby Aggrieved by the CA's Decision, petitioner
ordered to CANCEL Avelina, as substituted by her heirs except
the Tax Declaration in respondent Emelinda, and petitioner Salvador are
the name of private now before this Court ascribing reversible error on
[respondents] the part of the appellate court.
spouses Gualvez
We find merit in the instant petition.
under ARP No. 4143
and to REINSTATE It has indeed been ruled that the declaration
the Tax Declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding,
under ARP No. 0141 not in an independent civil action. However, this
in the name of Eulalio Court had likewise held that recourse to
Abarientos; administration proceedings to determine who heirs
are is sanctioned only if there is a good and
3. By way of restitution,
compelling reason for such recourse. 6 Hence, the
[petitioner] Avelina
Court had allowed exceptions to the rule requiring
Abarientos
administration proceedings as when the parties in
Rebusquillo is hereby
the civil case already presented their evidence
ordered to return or
regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC had
refund to
consequently rendered judgment upon the issues it
[respondents]
defined during the pre-trial. 7 In Portugal v. Portugal-
spouses Domingo
Beltran, 8 this Court held: CSDTac
Gualvez and
Emelinda Gualvez, In the case at bar,
the PhP50,000.00 respondent, believing rightly or
given by the latter wrongly that she was the sole heir
spouses to the to Portugal's estate, executed on
former. 4 TIDaCE February 15, 1988 the questioned
Affidavit of Adjudication under the
41
 second sentence of Rule 74, as Portugal teaches, to dispense with a separate
Section 1 of the Revised Rules of special proceeding for the determination of the
Court. Said rule is an exception to status of petitioner Avelina as sole heir of Eulalio,
the general rule that when a person especially in light of the fact that respondents
dies leaving a property, it should be spouses Gualvez admitted in court that they
judicially administered and the knew for a fact that petitioner Avelina
competent court should appoint a was not the sole heir of Eulalio and that
qualified administrator, in the order petitioner Salvador was one of the other living
established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 in heirs with rights over the subject land. As
case the deceased left no will, or in confirmed by the RTC in its Decision, respondents
case he did, he failed to name an have stipulated and have thereby admitted the
executor therein. veracity of the following facts during the pre-
trial: ScAaHE
Petitioners claim, however,
to be the exclusive heirs IV — UNCONTROVERTED
of Portugal A probate or intestate FACTS: (Based on the stipulation of
court, no doubt, has jurisdiction to facts in the Pre-Trial Order)
declare who are the heirs of a
A. . . .
deceased.
It appearing, however, B. [Petitioners] and private
that in the present case the only [respondents] spouses
property of the intestate estate Gualvez admitted the
of Portugal is the Caloocan parcel following facts:
of land to still subject it, under 1. Identity of the parties;
the circumstances of the case, to
a special proceeding which could 2. Capacity of the [petitioners]
be long, hence, not expeditious, and private
just to establish the status of [respondents] to sue
petitioners as heirs is not only and be sued;
impractical; it is burdensome to the 3. [Petitioner] Avelina
estate with the costs and expenses Abarientos-
of an administration proceeding. Rebusquilllo is not
And it is superfluous in light of the only surviving
the fact that the parties to the civil heir of deceased
case — subject of the present spouses Eulalio and
case, could and had already in Victoria Abarientos;
fact presented evidence before
the trial court which assumed 4. Petitioner Salvador
jurisdiction over the case upon Orosco is a co-
the issues it defined during pre- owner/possessor of
trial. a portion of the
subject property;
In fine, under the
circumstances of the present case, 5. Fortunata Abarientos-
there being no compelling reason to Orosco is the sister
still subject Portugal's estate to of Avelina
administration proceedings since a Abarientos;
determination of petitioners' status 6. [Respondent] Emelinda
as heirs could be achieved in the Rebusquillo-Gualves
civil case filed by petitioners, the trial is a daughter of
court should proceed to evaluate the [petitioner] Avelina A.
evidence presented by the parties Rebusquillo;
during the trial and render a decision
thereon upon the issues it defined 7. [Petitioner] Avelina
during pre-trial . . . . (emphasis Rebusquillo was born
supplied) on Nov. 10, 1923;
Similar to Portugal, in the present case, 8. The existence of Affidavit of
there appears to be only one parcel of land being Self-Adjudication of
claimed by the contending parties as the inheritance Estate of the
from Eulalio. It would be more practical, Deceased and Deed
42
 of Absolute Sale The Civil Code provides: aDcTHE
executed by
Art. 1345. Simulation of a
[petitioner] Avelina A.
contract may be absolute or
Rebusquillo on the
relative. — The former takes place
subject
when the parties do not intend to
property. 9 (emphasis
be bound at all; the latter, when the
supplied) SaITHC
parties conceal their true
In light of the admission of respondents agreement. (emphasis supplied)
spouses Gualvez, it is with more reason that a resort
Art. 1346. An absolutely
to special proceeding will be but an unnecessary
simulated or fictitious contract is
superfluity. Accordingly, the court a quo had properly
void. — A relative simulation, when
rendered judgment on the validity of the Affidavit of
it does not prejudice a third person
Self-Adjudication executed by Avelina. As pointed
and is not intended for any purpose
out by the trial court, an Affidavit of Self-
contrary to law, morals, good
Adjudication is only proper when the affiant is
customs, public order or public
the sole heir of the decedent. The second
policy binds the parties to their real
sentence of Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of
agreement.
Court is patently clear that self-adjudication is only
warranted when there is only one heir: In Heirs of Policronio Ureta Sr. v. Heirs of
Liberato Ureta, 11 this Court explained the concept
Section 1. Extrajudicial
of the simulation of contracts:
settlement by agreement between
heirs. — . . . If there is only one In absolute simulation, there
heir, he may adjudicate to himself is a colorable contract but it has no
the entire estate by means of an substance as the parties have no
affidavit filed in the office of the intention to be bound by it. The
register of deeds. . . . (emphasis main characteristic of an absolute
supplied) simulation is that the apparent
contract is not really desired or
As admitted by respondents, Avelina
intended to produce legal effect
was not the sole heir of Eulalio. In fact, as admitted
or in any way alter the juridical
by respondents, petitioner Salvador is one of the co-
situation of the parties. As a
heirs by right of representation of his mother.
result, an absolutely simulated or
Without a doubt, Avelina had perjured herself when
fictitious contract is void, and the
she declared in the affidavit that she is "the only
parties may recover from each
daughter and sole heir of spouses EULALIO
other what they may have given
ABARIENTOS AND VICTORIA
under the contract. However, if the
VILLAREAL." 10 The falsity of this claim renders her
parties state a false cause in the
act of adjudicating to herself the inheritance left by
contract to conceal their real
her father invalid. The RTC did not, therefore, err in
agreement, the contract is relatively
granting Avelina's prayer to declare the affidavit null
simulated and the parties are still
and void and so correct the wrong she has
bound by their real agreement.
committed.
Hence, where the essential
In like manner, the Deed of Absolute Sale requisites of a contract are present
executed by Avelina in favor of respondents was and the simulation refers only to the
correctly nullified and voided by the RTC. Avelina content or terms of the contract, the
was not in the right position to sell and transfer the agreement is absolutely binding and
absolute ownership of the subject property to enforceable between the parties and
respondents. As she was not the sole heir of Eulalio their successors in interest.
and her Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is void, the (emphasis supplied) acHTIC
subject property is still subject to partition. Avelina, in
In the present case, the true intention of the
fine, did not have the absolute ownership of the
parties in the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale
subject property but only an aliquot portion. What
is immediately apparent from respondents' very own
she could have transferred to respondents was only
Answer to petitioners' Complaint. As respondents
the ownership of such aliquot portion. It is apparent
themselves acknowledge, the purpose of the Deed
from the admissions of respondents and the records
of Absolute Sale was simply to "facilitate the titling of
of this case that Avelina had no intention to transfer
the [subject] property," not to transfer the ownership
the ownership, of whatever extent, over the property
of the lot to them. Furthermore, respondents
to respondents. Hence, the Deed of Absolute Sale is
concede that petitioner Salvador remains in
nothing more than a simulated contract.
43
possession of the property and that there is no WHEREFORE, the instant petition
indication that respondents ever took possession of is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 30, 2012
the subject property after its supposed purchase. and the Resolution dated September 25, 2012 of the
Such failure to take exclusive possession of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93035 are
subject property or, in the alternative, to collect hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision
rentals from its possessor, is contrary to the principle dated January 20, 2009 in Civil Case No. 10407 of
of ownership and is a clear badge of simulation that the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4 in Legazpi
renders the whole transaction void. 12 City is REINSTATED.
Contrary to the appellate court's opinion, the SO ORDERED.
fact that the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale was
||| (Rebusquillo v. Spouses Gualvez, G.R. No. 204029,
reduced to writing and notarized does not accord it
the quality of incontrovertibility otherwise provided by [June 4, 2014], 735 PHIL 434-447)
the parole evidence rule. The form of a contract
does not make an otherwise simulated and invalid
act valid. The rule on parole evidence is not, as it
were, ironclad. Sec. 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court provides the exceptions: DEcTCa
Section 9. Evidence of
written agreements. — . . .
However, a party may
present evidence to modify, explain
or add to the terms of written
agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity,
mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;
(b) The failure of the
written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the
parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the
written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other
terms agreed to by the parties or
their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
The term "agreement"
includes wills. (emphasis supplied)
The failure of the Deed of Absolute Sale to
express the true intent and agreement of the
contracting parties was clearly put in issue in the
present case. Again, respondents themselves admit
in their Answer that the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
and the Deed of Absolute Sale were only executed
to facilitate the titling of the property. The RTC is,
therefore, justified to apply the exceptions provided
in the second paragraph of Sec. 9, Rule 130 to
ascertain the true intent of the parties, which shall
prevail over the letter of the document. That said,
considering that the Deed of Absolute Sale has been
shown to be void for being absolutely simulated,
petitioners are not precluded from presenting
evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of
the written agreement. 13

44
9. BENATIRO V. HRS. OF CUYOS, 560 SCRA appeared. Both counsels manifested that the parties
had come to an agreement to settle their case. The
[G.R. No. 161220. July 30, 2008.] trial court on even date issued an Order 5 appointing
Gloria as administratrix of the estate. The dispositive
portion reads:
SPOUSES
GORGONIO BENATIRO and WHEREFORE,
COLUMBA CUYOS-BENATIRO subs letters of administration of the
tituted by their heirs, namely: estate of the late
Isabelita, Renato, Rosadelia and Evaristo Cuyos and including the
Gorgonio, Jr., surnamed Benatiro, undivided half accruing to his
and SPOUSES RENATO spouse Agatona Arrogante who
C. BENATIRO and ROSIE recently died is hereby issued in
M. BENATIRO, petitioners, vs. HEIRS  favor of Mrs. Gloria Cuyos Talian
OF EVARISTO CUYOS, namely: who may qualify as such
Gloria Cuyos-Talian, administratrix after posting a
Patrocenia Cuyos-Mijares, nominal
Numeriano Cuyos, and bond of P1,000.00. 6 cDCaTS
Enrique Cuyos, represented by
Subsequently, in the Order 7 dated
their attorney-in-fact,
December 12, 1975, the CFI stated that when the
Salud Cuyos, respondents.
Intestate Estate hearing was called on that date,
respondent Gloria and her brother, oppositor
Francisco, together with their respective counsels,
DECISION appeared; that Atty. Yray, Francisco's counsel,
manifested that the parties had come to an
agreement to settle the case amicably; that both
counsels suggested that the Clerk of Court, Atty.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J p: Andres C. Taneo (Atty. Taneo), be appointed to act
as Commissioner to effect the agreement of the
Before us is a Petition for Review parties and to prepare the project of partition for the
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court approval of the court. In the same Order, the
filed by petitioners seeking to annul the Court of First Instance (CFI) appointed Atty. Taneo
Decision 1 dated July 18, 2003 of the and ordered him to make a project of partition within
Court of Appeals (CA) and its Resolution 2 dated 30 days from December 12, 1975 for submission
November 13, 2003 denying petitioners' motion for and approval of the court.
reconsideration issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 65630. 3 In his Commissioner's Report 8 dated July
Spouses Evaristo Cuyos and Agatona 29, 1976, Atty. Taneo stated that he issued
Arrogante Cuyos were blessed with nine children, subpoenae supplemented by telegrams to all
namely: Francisco, Victoria, Columba, Lope, Salud, the heirs to cause their appearance on February 28
Gloria, Patrocenia, Numeriano, and Enrique. On and 29, 1976 in Tapilon, Daanbantayan, Cebu,
August 28, 1966, Evaristo died leaving six where the properties are located, for a conference or
parcels of land located in Tapilon, Daanbantayan, meeting to arrive at an agreement; that out of the
Cebu covered by Tax Declaration (TD) Nos. 000725, nine heirs, only respondents Gloria, Salud and
000728, 000729, 000730, 000731, 000732, all under Enrique Cuyos failed to attend; that per return of the
the name of Agatona Arrogante. DHcEAa service, these three heirs could not be located in
their respective given addresses; that since
On July 13, 1971, one of the heirs, some of the heirs present resided outside the
Gloria Cuyos-Talian (respondent Gloria) represented province of Cebu, they decided to go ahead with the
by Atty. Victor Elliot Lepiten (Atty. Lepiten), filed scheduled meeting. TCaEAD
before the Court of First Instance (CFI) now
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu, Branch XI, a Atty. Taneo declared in his Report that
petition 4 for Letters of Administration, docketed as the heirs who were present:
Special Proceeding (SP) No. 24-BN entitled "In the 1. Agreed to consider all income of the
Matter of the Intestate Estate of Evaristo Cuyos, properties of the estate during
Gloria Cuyos-Talian, petitioner." The petition was the time that Francisco Cuyos,
opposed by Gloria's brother, Francisco, who was one of the heirs, was
represented by Atty. Jesus Yray (Atty. Yray). administering the
In the hearing held on January 30, 1973, properties of the estate
both parties together with their respective counsels (without appointment from the

45
 Court) as having been WHEREFORE, finding the
properly and duly accounted terms and conditions agreed upon
for. by the heirs to be in order, the same
being not contrary to law, said
2. Agreed to consider all income of the compromise agreement as
properties of the estate during embodied in the report of the
the commissioner is hereby approved.
administration of Gloria Cuyos  The Court hereby orders the
Talian, (duly appointed by the Administratrix to execute the
Court) also one of the heirs as deed of sale covering all the
having been properly and duly properties of the estate in
accounted for. favor of Columba Cuyos Benatiro aft
3. Agreed to consider all motions filed er the payment to her of the
in this proceedings sum of P36,000.00. The said
demanding an accounting sum of money shall remain in
from Francisco Cuyos and custodia legis, but after all the
Gloria Cuyos Talian, as claims and administration expenses
having been withdrawn. and the estate taxes shall have
been paid for, the remainder shall,
4. Agreed not to partition the upon order of the Court, be divided
properties of the estate but equally among the heirs. 11
instead agreed to first sell it
The CFI disapproved the
for the sum of P40,000.00
claim of respondent Gloria for the sum of P5,570.00,
subject to the condition that
as the same had been allegedly disregarded by
should any of the heirs would
the heirs present during the conference.
be in a position to buy the
properties of the estate, the In an Order 12 dated January 11, 1978, the
rest of the eight (8) heirs will CFI appointed Lope Cuyos (Cuyos) as the new
just receive only Four administrator of the estate, purportedly on the
Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) basis of the motion to relieve respondent Gloria, as it
each. ATcaID appeared that she was already residing in Central
Luzon and her absence was detrimental to the early
5. Agreed to equally divide the termination of the proceedings. IcTEaC
administration expenses to be
deducted from their respective On May 25, 1979,
share of P4,000.00. 9 administrator Cuyos executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale 13 over the six parcels of land constituting the
The Report further stated that intestate estate of the late Evaristo Cuyos in
Columba Cuyos-Benatiro (Columba), favor of Columba for a consideration of the
one of the heirs, informed all those present in the sum of P36,000.00.
conference of her desire to buy the properties of the
estate, to which everybody present agreed, and Sometime in February 1998,
considered her the buyer. Atty. Taneo explained that the heirs of Evaristo Cuyos, namely: Gloria Cuyos-
the delay in the submission of the Report was due to Talian, Patrocenia Cuyos-Mijares,
the request of respondent Gloria that she be given Numeriano Cuyos and Enrique Cuyos, represented
enough time to make some consultations on what by their attorney-in-fact, Salud Cuyos (respondents),
was already agreed upon by the allegedly learned that Tax Declaration Nos. 000725,
majority of the heirs; that it was only on July 11, 000728, 000729, 000730, 000731 and 000732,
1976 that the letter of respondent Gloria was handed which were all in the name of their late mother
to Atty. Taneo, with the information that respondent Agatona Arrogante, were canceled and new Tax
Gloria was amenable to what had been agreed Declaration Nos., namely, 20-14129, 20-14130, 20-
upon, provided she be given the sum of P5,570.00 141131, 20-14132, 20-14133 and 20-14134, were
as her share of the estate, since issued in Columba's name; and that later on,
one of properties of the estate was mortgaged to her Original Certificates of Titles covering the
in order to defray their father's estate of Evaristo Cuyos were issued in
hospitalization. HIaAED favor of Columba; that some of these parcels of land
were subsequently transferred to the
Quoting the Commissioner's Report, the CFI names of spouses Renato C. Benatiro and Rosie
issued the assailed Order 10 dated December 16, M. Benatiro, son and daughter-in-law,
1976, the dispositive portion of which reads as respectively, of petitioners Gorgonio and Columba,
follows: for which transfer certificates of title were
46
subsequently issued; that they subsequently Herein petitioners contend that respondents'
discovered the existence of the assailed CFI Order allegation that they discovered the assailed order
dated December 16, 1976 and the Deed of Absolute dated December 16, 1976 only in February 1998
Sale dated May 25, 1979. EHIcaT was preposterous, as respondents were represented
by counsel in the intestate proceedings; thus,
Respondents filed a complaint against
notice of Order to counsel was notice to client; that
petitioner Gorgonio Benatiro before the Commission
this was only a ploy so that they could claim that
on the Settlement of Land Problems
they filed the petition for annulment within the
(COSLAP) of the Department of Justice, which on
statutory period of four (4) years; that they have
June 13, 2000 dismissed the case for
been in possession of the six parcels of land since
lack of jurisdiction. 14
May 25, 1979 when the same was sold to them
Salud Cuyos brought the matter for pursuant to the assailed Order in the intestate
conciliation and mediation at the barangay level, but proceedings; that no extrinsic fraud attended the
was unsuccessful. 15 issuance of the assailed order; that Numeriano
executed an affidavit in which he attested to having
On July 16, 2001, Salud Cuyos, for herself received his share of the sale proceeds on May 18,
and in representation 16 of the 1988; that respondents were estopped from
other heirs of Evaristo Cuyos, namely: Gloria, assailing the Order dated December 16, 1976, as it
Patrocenia, Numeriano, 17 and Enrique, filed with had already attained the status of finality.
the CA a petition for annulment of the Order dated
December 16, 1976 of the CFI of Cebu, Branch XI, On July 18, 2003, the CA granted the
in SP No. 24-BN under Rule 47 of the petition and annulled the CFI order, the dispositive
Rules of Court. They alleged that the CFI Order portion of which reads:
dated December 16, 1976 was null and void
FOR ALL THE
and of no effect, the same being based on a
FOREGOING REASONS, the
Commissioner's Report, which was patently false
instant petition is hereby GRANTED.
and irregular; that such report practically deprived
Accordingly, the Order issued by the
them of due process in claiming their share of their
Court of First Instance of Cebu
father's estate; that Patrocenia Cuyos-Mijares
Branch XI dated December 16, 1976
executed an affidavit, as well as the unnotarized
as well as the Certificates of Title
statement of Gloria stating that no meeting ever took
issued in the
place for the purpose of discussing how to
name of Columba Cuyos-Benatiro a
dispose of the estate of their parents and that they
nd the subsequent transfer of these
never received any payment from the supposed
Titles in the name of spouses
sale of their share in the inheritance; that the report
Renato and Rosie Benatiro are
was done in close confederacy with their co-heir
hereby ANNULLED and SET
Columba, who stood to be benefited by the
ASIDE. Further, SP Proc. Case No.
Commissioner's recommendation, should the same
24-BN is hereby ordered reopened
be approved by the probate court; that since the
and proceedings thereon be
report was a falsity, any order proceeding therefrom
continued. 18 aSIETH
was invalid; that the issuance of the
certificates of titles in favor of respondents were The CA declared that the ultimate fact that
tainted with fraud and irregularity, since the CFI was needed to be established was the veracity and
which issued the assailed order did not appear to truthfulness of the Commissioner's Report, which
have been furnished a copy of the Deed of Absolute was used by the trial court as its basis for issuing the
Sale; that the CFI was not in custodia legis of the assailed Order. The CA held that to arrive at an
consideration of the sale, as directed in its Order so agreement, there was a need for all the concerned
that it could divide the remainder of the parties to be present in the conference; however,
consideration equally among the heirs after paying such was not the scenario since in their separate
all the administration expenses and estate taxes; sworn statements, the compulsory heirs of the
that the intestate case had not yet been terminated decedent attested to the fact that no meeting or
as the last order found relative to the case was the conference ever happened among them; that
appointment of Lope as administrator vice Gloria; although under Section 3 (m), Rule 133 on the
that they never received their corresponding share in Rules of Evidence, there is a
the inheritance; and that the act of petitioners in presumption of regularity in the performance of an
manifest connivance with administrator Lope official duty, the same may be contradicted and
amounted to a denial of their right to the property overcome by other evidence to prove the contrary.
without due process of law, thus, clearly showing
The CA noted some particulars that led it to
that extrinsic fraud caused them to be
conclude that the conference was not held
deprived of their property. cITCAa
accordingly, to wit: (1) the Commissioner's Report
47
never mentioned the names of the heirs who were Moreover, the CA found that the copy of the
present in the alleged conference but only the Deed of Sale was not even furnished the trial court
names of those who were absent, when the nor was said money placed under custodia legis as
names of those who were present were equally agreed upon; that the Certification dated December
essential, if not even more important, than the 9, 1998 issued by the Clerk of Court of Cebu
names of those who were absent; (2) the Report indicated that the case had not yet been terminated
also failed to include any proof of conformity to the and that the last Order in the special proceeding was
agreement from the attendees, such as letting them the appointment of Lope Cuyos as the new
sign the report to signify their consent as regards the administrator of the estate; thus, the transfer of the
agreed mechanisms for the estate's settlement; (3) parcels of land, which included the execution of the
there was lack or absence of physical evidence Deed of Absolute Sale, cancellation of Tax
attached to the report indicating that the respondents Declarations and the issuance of new Tax
were indeed properly notified about the scheduled Declarations and Transfer Certificates of Title, all in
conference. The CA then concluded that due to the favor of petitioners, were tainted with fraud.
absence of the respondents' consent, the legal Consequently, the CA concluded that the
existence of the compromise agreement did not compromise agreement, the certificates of title and
stand on a firm ground. ACTESI the transfers made by petitioners through fraud
cannot be made a legal basis of their ownership over
The CA further observed that although it
the properties, since to do so would result in
appeared that notice of the report was given to Atty.
enriching them at the expense of the respondents;
Lepiten and Atty. Yray, lawyers of Gloria and
and that it was also evident that the fraud attendant
Francisco Cuyos, respectively, the same cannot be
in this case was one of extrinsic fraud, since
taken as notice to the other heirs of Evaristo Cuyos;
respondents were denied the opportunity to fully
that a lawyer's authority to compromise cannot be
litigate their case because of the scheme utilized by
simply presumed, since what was required was the
petitioners to assert their claim. aCASEH
special authority to compromise on behalf of his
client; that a compromise agreement entered into by Hence, herein petition raising the following
a person not duly authorized to do so by the issues:
principal is void and has no legal effect,
Whether or not
citing Quiban v. Butalid; 19 that being a void
annulment of order under Rule
compromise agreement, the assailed Order had no
47 of the Rules of Court was a
legal effect.
proper remedy where the aggrieved
Thus, the CA ruled that the party had other appropriate
Certificates of Titles obtained by herein petitioners remedies, such as new trial, appeal,
were procured fraudulently; that the initial or petition for relief, which they failed
transfer of the properties to Columba Cuyos- to take through their own fault.
Benatiro by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale
Whether or not the
executed by Lope Cuyos was clearly defective, since
Court of Appeals misapprehended
the compromise agreement which served as the
the facts when it annulled the 24
basis of the Deed of Absolute Sale was void and had
year old Commissioner's
no legal effect. HSaIET
Report of the Clerk of Court — an
The CA elaborated that there was no official act which enjoys a strong
showing that Columba paid the sum of P36,000.00 presumption of regularity — based
to the administrator as consideration for the sale, merely on belated
except for the allegations of irregularities in the
testimony of Numeriano Cuyos admitting that he performance of said official
received his share of the proceeds but without act. cSHATC
indicating the exact amount that he received; that
Whether or not upon the
even so, such alleged payment was incomplete and
facts as found by the
was not in compliance with the trial court's order for
Court of Appeals in this case,
the administratrix to execute the deed of sale
extrinsic fraud existed which is a
covering all properties of the estate in
sufficient ground to annul the lower
favor of Columba Cuyos-Benatiro after the payment
court's order under Rule 47 of the
to the administratrix of the sum of P36,000.00; that
Rules of Court. 20
said sum of money shall remain in custodia legis, but
after all the claims and administration expenses and Subsequent to the filing of their petition,
the estate taxes shall have been paid for, the petitioners filed a Manifestation that they were in
remainder shall, upon order of the Court, be divided possession of affidavits of waiver and desistance
equally among the heirs. executed by the heirs of Lope Cuyos 21 and

48
respondent Patrocenia Cuyos-Mijares 22 on Although Section 2 of Rule 47 of the
February 17, 2004 and December 17, 2004, Rules of Court provides that annulment of a final
respectively. In both affidavits, the affiants stated judgment or order of an RTC may be based "only on
that they had no more interest in the grounds of extrinsic fraud and
prosecuting/defending the case involving the lack of jurisdiction", jurisprudence recognizes
settlement of the estate, since the subject estate denial of due process as additional ground
properties had been bought by their late sister therefor. 26
Columba, and they had already received their
An action to annul a final judgment on the
share of the purchase price. Another heir,
ground of fraud will lie only if the fraud is extrinsic or
respondent Numeriano Cuyos, had also earlier
collateral in character. 27 Extrinsic fraud exists when
executed an Affidavit 23 dated December 13, 2001,
there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing
stating that the subject estate was sold to Columba
party outside of the trial of the case, whereby the
and that she had already received her share of the
defeated party was prevented from presenting fully
purchase price on May 18, 1988. In addition,
his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced
Numeriano had issued a certification 24 dated May
on him by the prevailing party. 28 Fraud is regarded
18, 1988, which was not refuted by any of the
as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a
parties, that he had already received P4,000.00 in
trial or from presenting his entire case to the court,
payment of his share, which could be the reason
or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to
why he refused to sign the Special
the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is
Power of Attorney supposedly in
procured. The overriding consideration when
favor of Salud Cuyos for the filing of the petition with
extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent
the CA. TcHEaI
scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party
The issue for resolution is whether the CA from having his day in court. 29 DCAHcT
committed a reversible error in annulling the CFI
While we find that the CA correctly annulled
Order dated December 16, 1976, which approved
the CFI Order dated December 16, 1976, we find
the Commissioner's Report embodying the alleged
that it should be annulled not on the
compromise agreement entered into by
ground of extrinsic fraud, as there is no sufficient
the heirs of Evaristo and Agatona Arrogante Cuyos.
evidence to hold Atty. Taneo or
We rule in the negative. any of the heirs guilty of fraud, but on the ground
that the assailed order is void for lack of due
The remedy of annulment of judgment is
process.
extraordinary in character 25 and will not so easily
and readily lend itself to abuse by parties aggrieved Clerk of Court Taneo was appointed to act
by final judgments. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 47 as Commissioner to effect the
impose strict conditions for recourse to it, viz.: agreement of the heirs and to prepare the
project of partition for submission and
Section 1. Coverage. —
approval of the court. Thus, it was incumbent upon
This Rule shall govern the
Atty. Taneo to set a time and place for the first
annulment by the
meeting of the heirs. In his Commissioner's Report,
Court of Appeals of judgments or
Atty. Taneo stated that he caused the
final orders and resolutions in civil
appearance of all the heirs of Evaristo Cuyos and
actions of Regional Trial Courts for
Agatona Arrogante Cuyos in the place, where the
which the ordinary remedies of new
subject properties were located for settlement, by
trial, appeal, petition for relief or
sending them subpoenae supplemented by
other appropriate remedies are no
telegrams for them to attend the conference
longer available through no
scheduled on February 28 to 29, 1976. It was also
fault of the petitioner. acITSD
alleged that out of the nine heirs, only six attended
Section 2. Grounds for the conference; however, as the CA aptly found, the
annulment. — The annulment may Commissioner did not state the names of those
be based only on the present, but only those heirs who failed to attend the
grounds of extrinsic fraud and conference, namely: respondents Gloria, Salud and
lack of jurisdiction. Enrique who, as stated in the Report, based on the
return of service, could not be located in their
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a respective given addresses. cEaACD
valid ground if it was availed of, or
could have been availed of, in a However, there is nothing in the records that
motion for new trial or petition for would establish that the alleged subpoenae,
relief. supplemented by telegrams, for the heirs to appear
in the scheduled conference were indeed sent to
the heirs. In fact, respondent Patrocenia Cuyos-
49
Mijares, one of the heirs, who was presumably competent proofs of irregularity that rebut the
present in the conference, as she was not presumption.
mentioned as among those absent, had executed an
Thus, we find no reversible error committed
affidavit 30 dated December 8, 1998 attesting, to the
by the CA in ruling that the conference was not held
fact that she was not called to a meeting nor was
accordingly and in annulling the assailed order of the
there any telegram or notice of any meeting received
CFI.
by her. While Patrocenia had executed on
December 17, 2004 an Affidavit of Waiver and Petitioners attached a Certification 33 dated
Desistance 31 regarding this case, it was only for the August 7, 2003 issued by the Officer In Charge
reason that the subject estate properties had been (OIC), Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC, Branch 11,
bought by their late sister Columba, and that she to show that copies of the Commissioner's Report
had already received her corresponding share of the were sent to all the heirs, except Salud and Enrique,
purchase price, but there was nothing in the affidavit as well as to Attys. Lepiten and Yray as enumerated
that retracted her previous statement that she was in the Notice found at the lower portion of the Report
not called to a meeting. Respondent Gloria also with the accompanying registry receipts. 34 CEDScA
made an unnotarized statement 32 that there was no
In Cua v. Vargas, 35 in which the issue was
meeting held. Thus, the veracity of Atty. Taneo's
whether heirs were deemed constructively
holding of a conference with the heirs was doubtful.
notified of and bound by an extra-judicial settlement
Moreover, there was no evidence showing and partition of the estate, regardless of their failure
that the heirs indeed convened for the to participate therein, when the extra-judicial
purpose of arriving at an agreement regarding the settlement and partition has been duly published, we
estate properties, since they were not even required held:
to sign anything to show their attendance of the
The procedure outlined in
alleged meeting. In fact, the Commissioner's Report,
Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte
which embodied the alleged agreement of the heirs,
proceeding. The rule plainly
did not bear the signatures of the alleged attendees
states, however, that persons
to show their consent and conformity
who do not participate or had no
thereto. aTcESI
notice of an extrajudicial
It bears stressing that the purpose of the settlement will not be bound
conference was for the heirs to arrive at a thereby. It contemplates a notice
compromise agreement over the that has been sent out or issued
estate of Evaristo Cuyos. Thus, it was imperative before any deed of settlement
that all the heirs must be present in the conference and/or partition is agreed upon
and be heard to afford them the opportunity to (i.e., a notice calling all interested
protect their interests. Considering that no separate parties to participate in the said
instrument of conveyance was executed among deed of extrajudicial settlement
the heirs embodying their alleged agreement, it was and partition), and not after such
necessary that the Report be signed by the heirs to an agreement has already been
prove that a conference among the heirs was indeed executed as what happened in the
held, and that they conformed to the agreement instant case with the
stated in the Report. publication of the first
deed of extrajudicial settlement
Petitioners point out that the Commissioner
among heirs. CTDacA
was an officer of the court and a disinterested party
and that, under Rule 133, Section 3 (m) of the Rules The publication of the
on Evidence, there is a presumption that official duty settlement does not constitute
has been regularly performed. IDASHa constructive notice to the heirs who
had no knowledge or did not take
While, under the general rule, it is to be
part in it because the same was
presumed that everything done by an officer in
notice after the fact of execution.
connection with the performance of an official act in
The requirement of publication is
the line of his duty was legally done, such
geared for the protection of creditors
presumption may be overcome by evidence to the
and was never intended to
contrary. We find the instances mentioned by the
deprive heirs of their lawful
CA, such as absence of the names of the persons
participation in the decedent's
present in the conference, absence of the
estate. In this connection, the
signatures of the heirs in the Commissioner's
records of the present case confirm
Report, as well as absence of evidence showing that
that respondents never signed
respondents were notified of the conference, to be
either of the settlement documents,

50
 having discovered their existence taken the appropriate remedy such as a motion for
only shortly before the filing of the reconsideration, a motion for new trial or a petition for
present complaint. Following Rule relief under Rule 38 at the proper time, but they failed
74, these extrajudicial settlements to do so without giving any cogent reason for such
do not bind respondents, and the failure. HTaIAC
partition made without their
While the trial court's order approving the
knowledge and consent is invalid
Commissioner's Report was received by Attys. Yray
insofar as they are
and Lepiten, they were the lawyers of Gloria and
concerned 36 (Emphasis supplied)
Francisco, respectively, but not the lawyers of the
Applying the above-mentioned case by other heirs. As can be seen from the pleadings filed
analogy, what matters is whether the heirs were before the probate court, Atty. Lepiten was Gloria's
indeed notified before the compromise agreement counsel when she filed her Petition for
was arrived at, which was not established, and not letters of administration, while Atty. Yray was
whether they were notified of the Commissioner's Francisco's lawyer when he filed his opposition to the
Report embodying the alleged agreement petition for letters of administration and his Motion to
afterwards. Order administratrix Gloria to render an accounting
and for the partition of the estate. Thus, the
We also find nothing in the records that
other heirs who were not represented by counsel were
would show that the heirs were called to a hearing to
not given any notice of the judgment approving the
validate the Report. The CFI adopted and approved
compromise. It was only sometime in February 1998
the Report despite the absence of the
that respondents learned that the tax declarations
signatures of all the heirs showing conformity
covering the parcels of land, which were all in the
thereto. The CFI adopted the Report despite the
name of their late mother Agatona Arrogante, were
statement therein that only six out of the
canceled; and new Tax Declarations were issued in
nine heirs attended the conference, thus, effectively
Columba's name, and Original Certificates of Titles
depriving the other heirs of their chance to be heard.
were subsequently issued in favor of Columba. Thus,
The CFI's action was tantamount to a violation of the
they could not have taken an appeal or other
constitutional guarantee that no person shall be
remedies. AaCTID
deprived of property without due process of law. We
find that the assailed Order dated December 16, Considering that the assailed Order is a void judgment
1976, which approved a void Commissioner's for lack of due process of law, it is no judgment at all. It
Report, is a void judgment for lack of due cannot be the source of any right or of any
process. STHDAc obligation. 38
We are not persuaded by petitioners' contentions that In Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, 39 we stated the
all the parties in the intestate estate proceedings in the consequences of a void judgment, thus:
trial court were duly represented by respective
A void judgment never acquires finality.
counsels, namely, Atty. Lepiten for petitioners-
Hence, while admittedly, the petitioner in the
heirs and Atty. Yray for the oppositors-heirs; that when
case at bar failed to appeal timely the
the heirs agreed to settle the case amicably, they
aforementioned decision of the Municipal Trial
manifested such intention through their lawyers, as
Court of Naic, Cavite, it cannot be deemed to
stated in the Order dated January 30, 1973; that an
have become final and executory. In
heir in the settlement of the estate of a deceased
contemplation of law, that void decision is
person need not hire his own lawyer, because his
deemed non-existent. Thus, there was no
interest in the estate is represented by the judicial
effective or operative judgment to appeal from.
administrator who retains the services of a counsel;
In Metropolitan Waterworks & Sewerage
that a judicial administrator is the legal representative
System vs. Sison, this Court held that:
not only of the estate but also of the heirs, legatees,
and creditors whose interest he represents; that when . . . [A] void judgment is not entitled to the
the trial court issued the assailed Order dated respect accorded to a valid judgment, but may
December 16, 1976 approving the Commissioner's be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative
Report, the parties' lawyers were duly served said by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be
copies of the Order on December 21, 1976 as shown given to it. It is attended by none of the
by the Certification 37 dated August 7, 2003 of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has
RTC OIC, Clerk of Court; that notices to lawyers no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any
should be considered notices to the clients, since, if a purpose or at any place. It cannot affect,
party is represented by counsel, impair or create rights. It is not entitled to
service of notices of orders and pleadings shall be enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to
made upon the lawyer; that upon receipt of such order those who seek to enforce. All proceedings
by counsels, any one of the respondents could have founded on the void judgment are themselves

51
regarded as invalid. In other words, a void paramount consideration in annulling the assailed
judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the order. It bears stressing that an action to declare the
situation is the same as it would be if there nullity of a void judgment does not
were no judgment. It, accordingly, leaves the prescribe. 45 HAEDCT
parties litigants in the same position they were
Finally, considering that the assailed CFI judgment is
in before the trial. IcEaST
void, it has no legal and binding effect, force or
Thus, a void judgment is no judgment at all. It efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is
cannot be the source of any right nor of any non-existent. Hence, the execution of the Deed of Sale
obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it by Lope in favor of Columba pursuant to said void
and all claims emanating from it have no legal judgment, the issuance of titles pursuant to said
effect. Hence, it can never become final and Deed of Sale, and the subsequent transfers are
any writ of execution based on it is void: ". . . it void ab initio. No reversible error was thus committed
may be said to be a lawless thing which can by the CA in annulling the judgment.
be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the
ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its
Decision dated July 18, 2003 and Resolution dated
head." 40 (Emphasis supplied)
November 13, 2003 of the Court of Appeals are
The CFI's order being null and void, it may be assailed AFFIRMED. The Regional Trial Court, Branch XI,
anytime, collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting Cebu and the Heirs of Evaristo Cuyos are DIRECTED
such judgment or final order in any action or to proceed with SP Proceedings Case No. 24-BN for
proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless barred by the settlement of the Estate of Evaristo Cuyos. cEDIAa
laches. 41 Consequently, the compromise agreement
No costs.
and the Order approving it must be declared null and
void and set aside. AcHCED SO ORDERED.
We find no merit in petitioners' claim that respondents ||| (Spouses Benatiro v. Heirs of Cuyos, G.R. No.
are barred from assailing the judgment after the 161220, [July 30, 2008], 582 PHIL 470-492)
lapse of 24 years from its finality on ground of laches
and estoppel.
Section 3, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that
an action for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic
fraud must be filed within four years from its discovery
and, if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred
by laches or estoppel.
The principle of laches or "stale demands" ordains that
the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which by
exercising due diligence could or should have been
done earlier, or the negligence or omission to assert a
right within a reasonable time, warrants a presumption
that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned
it or declined to assert it. 42 cDTACE
There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches
or staleness of demand; each case is to be determined
according to its particular circumstances. 43 The
question of laches is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court and, being an equitable
doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable
considerations. It cannot be used to defeat justice or
perpetrate fraud and injustice. It is the better rule that
courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided
or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the
doctrine of laches when to be so, a manifest wrong or
injustice would result. 44
In this case, respondents learned of the assailed order
only sometime in February 1998 and filed the petition
for annulment of judgment in 2001. Moreover, we find
that respondents' right to due process is the

52
 the deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate, which
was written in the English language, without
10. AMPARO CRUZ, ET. AL. V.ANGELITO CRUZ, previously reading and explaining the contents
ET. AL.,GR 211153,2/28/19 thereof to the latter; that Amparo and Antonia
fraudulently took advantage of Concepcion's
[G.R. No. 211153. February 28, 2018.] ignorance and mental weakness, deceiving and
cajoling her into signing the deed of extrajudicial
settlement, to her damage and injury; and that
AMPARO S. CRUZ; ERNESTO Antonia passed away, but left as her heirs herein
HALILI; ALICIA H. FLORENCIO; petitioners Ernesto Halili, Alicia H. Florencio, Donald
DONALD HALILI; EDITHA H. Halili, Editha H. Rivera, Ernesto Halili, Jr. and Julito
RIVERA; ERNESTO HALILI, JR.; Halili, who are in possession of the two lots allocated
and JULITO to Antonia. Respondents thus prayed, as follows:
HALILI, petitioners, vs. ANGELITO S.
CRUZ, CONCEPCION S. CRUZ, In view of the foregoing, it is
SERAFIN S. CRUZ, and VICENTE S. respectfully prayed that after due
CRUZ, respondents. hearing, judgment be rendered as
follows:
1. Declaring null and void
DECISION the extra-judicial settlement
executed by the parties on July 31,
DEL CASTILLO, J p: 1986;
2. Declaring one of the lots
This Petition for Review adjudicated to defendant Antonia
on Certiorari 1 seeks to set aside the June 25, 2013 Cruz-Halili to the common fund;
Decision 2 and January 29, 2014 Resolution 3 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 96345 3. For such other relief just
which, respectively, granted herein respondents' and equitable under the
appeal and reversed the June 1, 2010 Decision 4 of circumstances;
the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 4. To pay the cost of this
75 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 1380-98 SM, and denied suit. 6
petitioners' motion for reconsideration
thereto. HTcADC In their Answer, 7 petitioners prayed for
dismissal, claiming that the July 31, 1986 deed of
Factual Antecedents extrajudicial settlement of estate had been
voluntarily and freely executed by the parties, free
In an Amended Complaint 5 filed on April 6, from vitiated consent; that respondents' cause of
1999 and docketed with the RTC as Civil Case No. action has prescribed; that the complaint failed to
1380-98 SM, respondents Angelito S. Cruz, state a cause of action; and that no earnest efforts
Concepcion S. Cruz (Concepcion), and Serafin S. toward compromise have been made. By way of
Cruz alleged that they — together with their siblings, counterclaim, petitioners prayed for an award of
petitioner Amparo S. Cruz (Amparo) and Antonia moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and
Cruz (Antonia) — inherited a 940-square-meter costs of suit.
parcel of land (the subject property) from their late
parents, spouses Felix and Felisa Cruz, which land Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
was covered by Original Certificate of Title No. ON-
658; that on July 31, 1986, the parties executed a After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision
deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate covering dated June 1, 2010, pronouncing as follows:
the subject property, on the agreement that each From the foregoing, the
heir was to receive an equal portion of the subject main issue is whether or not the
property as mandated by law; that in 1998, when the extrajudicial settlement is null and
subject property was being subdivided and the void on grounds of fraud, deceit,
subdivision survey plan was shown to respondents, misrepresentation or mistake.
they discovered that Antonia was allocated two lots,
as against one (1) each for the respondents; that xxx xxx xxx
Antonia's allocation of two lots contravened the Besides, while the Extra-
agreement among the heirs that they would receive Judicial Settlement was executed
equal shares in the subject property; that Amparo and signed on July 13, 1986 8 x x x,
and Antonia were able to perpetrate the fraud by and alleged fraud was discovered
inducing Concepcion — who was illiterate — to sign on May 12, 1986 when subdivision
53
survey was conducted x x x and tradition and good customs, equality
defendants started to build their is relaxed if only to buy peace, or
houses x x x this petition was filed out of compassion or courtesy. So
only on August 14, 1998 or more long as not contrary to strict
than 10 years from date of execution provisions of the law, the supremacy
or date of discovery of alleged fraud. of contracts shall be
Under Art. 1144 Civil Code, respected. aScITE
actionable documents
Being consensual, extra-
prescribes [sic] in 10 years.
judicial settlement is deemed
However, if a property is allegedly
perfected once mutual consent is
acquired thru fraud or mistake, the
manifested. Notarization being a
person obtaining it is, by force of
mere formality, whatever its infirmity
law, considered an implied trustee
cannot invalidate a contract but at
for the benefit of the person
most, merely ensue to
deprived of it, in which case the
administrative sanction on the part
action based thereon is 10 years
of their notary. Even so, unless a
from date of registration of the extra-
strong clear and convincing
judicial settlement or issuance of
evidence is shown, a document, one
new certificate of title (Art. 1456 Civil
appeared notarized [sic], becomes a
Code x x x). Hence, this petition is
public document. As between a
not barred by prescription. As the
public document and mere
period is not too long nor short,
allegations of plaintiffs, the former
laches has not yet set in.
prevails x x x.
Moreover, fraud, as basis of
Thirdly, for the past 10
the Complaint, is not delineated
years from 1996 [sic] when they
therein with particularity. Under Sec.
forged an extra-judicial settlement
5 Rule 8, fraud must be alleged
and defendants admittedly started
specifically, not generally.
constructing their house and even
Nonetheless, apart from such
made a subdivision survey, plaintiffs
allegations, no clear and convincing
also occupied their allotted lots but
evidence was presented by
never complain [sic] and even
plaintiffs. For one, while plaintiff
attended their reunions x x x. Other
Concepcion Cruz-Enriquez is
heirs also waived or sold shares to
admittedly only grade 3 and could
Amparo and Antonia Cruz x x x.
hardly understand English as what
Parties were even unified and
is written in the extra-judicial
unanimous in surrendering dominion
settlement which was not even
of their parents' ancestral house in
allegedly fully explained to her, it
favor of Antonia Cruz alone x x x. As
appears that she can absolutely
such, two lots would necessarily
read and write, and understand
accrue to Antonia Cruz, and only
English albeit not fully. And as she is
one lot each should belong to other
deeply interested in her inheritance
heirs. If the heirs are contented and
share, she is aware of the import
unanimously conformable, it is quite
and consequences of what she
absurd that only plaintiff Concepcion
executed and signed. For the past
Cruz-Enriquez was disagreeable
10 years, there is no way she could
and yet, after the lapse of 10 years.
feign ignorance of the alleged fraud
Her conduct then belies her present
and make passive reactions or
claim of being defrauded and
complaint thereof. Being adversely
prejudiced x x x. And in the
interested in the property, her
interpretation of stipulations,
apprehensions were purely in the
clarification may be had from such
state of her mind, if not unilateral
subsequent acts of the parties x x x.
and afterthought.
Even so, in case of conflict or dual
Secondly, just like any other interpretations, its validity shall be
contracts, parties in an extra-judicial preferred x x x.
settlement are given wide latitude to
Fourthly, other than simply
stipulate terms and conditions they
alleging that her sisters Amparo
feel fair and convenient beneficial to
Cruz and Antonia Cruz prepared the
one and prejudicial to the other. By
54
 extra-judicial settlement, and made settlement of estate, the case was
a house-to-house visit to have it clearly an action to annul the same.
signed by their brothers and sisters A distinction between an action for
including plaintiff Concepcion Cruz- annulment and one for declaration
Enriquez, no other independent of nullity of an agreement is called
facts aliunde has [sic] been adduced for.
to substantiate or the least
An action for annulment of
corroborate actual fraud. Fraud
contract is one filed where consent
cannot be presumed. It must be
is vitiated by lack of legal capacity of
proven. Mere allegation is not
one of the contracting parties, or by
evidence. Rather, if ever both
mistake, violence, intimidation,
defendants were eager to have it
undue influence or fraud. By its very
signed, their motive appears to be
nature, annulment contemplates a
solely to reduce in writing their
contract which is voidable, that is,
imperfect title over a thing already
valid until annulled. Such contract is
pre-owned.
binding on all the contracting parties
Peremptorily, following the until annulled and set aside by a
tenet "allegata et non probata," he court of law. It may be ratified. An
who alleges has the burden of proof. action for annulment of contract has
Thus, the burden of proof lies on the a four-year prescriptive period.
pleader. He cannot be allowed to
On the other hand, an
draw preponderance of evidence on
action for declaration of nullity of
the weakness of the respondent.
contract presupposes
Otherwise, the relief being sought
a void contract or one where all of
must necessarily fail. x x x Hence,
the requisites prescribed by law for
this case must be dismissed.
contracts are present but the cause,
And as plaintiffs filed this object or purpose is contrary to law,
petition relying on their unilateral morals, good customs, public order
perception that plaintiff Concepcion or public policy, prohibited by law or
Cruz-Enriquez was prejudiced by declared by law to be void. Such
the 2 lots for defendant Antonia contract as a rule produces no legal
Cruz, they and defendants shall and binding effect even if it is not set
each bear their own costs of aside by direct legal action. Neither
litigation and defense. may it be ratified. An action for the
declaration of nullity of contract is
WHEREFORE, premises
imprescriptible.
considered, the Complaint is hereby
ordered DISMISSED. Costs de- The appellants' pleading
officio. was for declaration of nullity of the
deed of extrajudicial settlement of
SO ORDERED. 9 (Citations
estate. However, this did not
omitted)
necessarily mean that appellants'
Ruling of the Court of Appeals action was dismissible.
Granting that the action filed
Respondents appealed before the CA, by appellants was incompatible with
which completely reversed and set aside the RTC's their allegations, it is not the caption
judgment and the parties' deed of extrajudicial of the pleading but the allegations
settlement. The appellate court held: that determine the nature of the
The sole issue in this case action. The court should grant the
is whether the consent given by relief warranted by the allegations
appellant Concepcion to the subject and the proof even if no such relief
extrajudicial settlement of estate is prayed for. In this case, the
was given voluntarily. allegations in the pleading and the
evidence adduced point to no other
We hold that it was not. remedy but to annul the extrajudicial
Although the action settlement of estate because of
commenced by appellants before vitiated consent.
the trial court was a declaration of
nullity of the deed of extrajudicial
55
 The essence of consent is Q: But you don't know how to
the agreement of the parties on the read English?
terms of the contract, the
A: No, your Honor.
acceptance by one of the offer made
by the other. It is the concurrence of Q: When you saw that the
the minds of the parties on the document was in
object and the cause which English, did you not
constitutes the contract. The area of ask your younger
agreement must extend to all points sister to read the
that the parties deem material or document before you
there is no consent at all. affixed your
signature?
To be valid, consent must
meet the following requisites: (a) it A: No, your Honor.
should be intelligent, or with an
Q: Why did you not ask
exact notion of the matter to which it
Amparo to read the
refers; (b) it should be free; and (c) it
document to you
should be spontaneous. Intelligence
considering that it was
in consent is vitiated by error;
in English and you
freedom by violence, intimidation or
don't understand
undue influence; and spontaneity by
English?
fraud.
A: Parti-partihan daw po at
Here, appellant Concepcion
nagtiwala ako, your
clearly denied any knowledge of the
Honor.
import and implication of the subject
document she signed, the subject    Appellant Concepcion
extra-judicial settlement. She invoked Articles 24 and 1332 of
asserted that she does not the Civil Code of the Philippines,
understand English, the language in which provide:
which the terms of the subject
document she signed was written. ART. 24. In
To quote a part of her testimony, all contractual,
translated in English, as follows: property or other
relations, when one
Q: Did you have occasion to of the parties is at a
read that document disadvantage on
before you affixed account of his moral
your signature on it? dependence,
ignorance,
A: The document was written
indigence, mental
in English and me as
weakness, tender
well as my brothers
age or other
and sisters, we
handicap, the courts
trusted our younger
must be vigilant for
sister, sir. HEITAD
his protection.
Q: That is why you signed the
ART.
document even
1332. When one of
though you did not
the parties is unable
understand the
to read, or if the
same?
contract is in a
A: Yes, sir. language not
understood by him,
Court:
and mistake or
   Did you not ask your fraud is alleged, the
younger sister person enforcing
Amparo to read this the contract must
document considering show that the terms
it was in English? I thereof have been
will reform the fully explained to
question. the former. x x x
56
 Article 1332 was a provision valid consent to a contract must
taken from [A]merican law, establish the same by full, clear and
necessitated by the fact that there convincing evidence, not merely by
continues to be a fair number of preponderance of evidence. Hence,
people in this country without the even as the burden of proof shifts to
benefit of a good education or the defendants x x x to rebut
documents have been written in the presumption of mistake, the
English or Spanish. The provision plaintiff x x x who allege(s) such
was intended to protect a party to a mistake (or fraud) must show that
contract disadvantaged by illiteracy, his personal circumstances warrant
ignorance, mental weakness or the application of Art. 1332.
some other handicap. It
In this case, the
contemplates a situation wherein a
presumption of mistake or error on
contract is entered into but the
the part of appellant Concepcion
consent of one of the contracting
was not sufficiently rebutted by
parties is vitiated by mistake or fraud
appellees. Appellees failed to offer
committed by the other.
any evidence to prove that the
Thus, in case one of the extrajudicial settlement of estate
parties to a contract is unable to was explained in a language known
read and fraud is alleged, the to the appellant Concepcion, i.e., in
person enforcing the contract must Pilipino. Clearly, appellant
show that the terms thereof have Concepcion, who only finished
been fully explained to the former. Grade 3, was not in a position to
Where a party is unable to read, and give her free, voluntary and
he expressly pleads in his reply that spontaneous consent without having
he signed the voucher in question the document, which was in English,
'without knowing its contents which explained to her in the Pilipino. She
have not been explained to him,' this stated in open court that she did not
plea is tantamount to one of mistake understand English. Her testimony
or fraud in the execution of the as quoted above is instructive.
voucher or receipt in question and
Due to her limited
the burden is shifted to the other
educational attainment, appellant
party to show that the former fully
Concepcion could not understand
understood the contents of the
the document in English. She
document; and if he fails to prove
wanted to seek assistance.
this, the presumption of mistake (if
However, due to the
not fraud) stands unrebutted and
misrepresentation, deception and
controlling.
undue pressure of her sister
Here, at the time appellant appellee Amparo, petitioner signed
Concepcion signed the document in the document. Appellant
question, she was with appellee Concepcion was assured that she
Amparo. Appellant could not would receive her legitimate share in
possibly have read the contents of the estate of their late parents.
the extra-judicial settlement and
Later on, appellant
could not have consented to a
Concepcion found out that appellee
contract whose terms she never
Antonia received two (2) lots
knew nor understood. It cannot be
compared to her siblings, including
presumed that appellant
appellant Concepcion, who
Concepcion knew the contents of
respectively received one (1) lot
the extra-judicial settlement. Article
each. This was a substantial
1332 of the Civil Code is applicable
mistake clearly prejudicial to the
in these circumstances.
substantive interests of appellant
Although under Art. 1332 Concepcion in her parent's estate.
there exists a presumption of There is no doubt that, given her
mistake or error accorded by law to lack of education, appellant
those who have not had the benefit Concepcion is protected by Art.
of a good education, one who 1332 of the Civil Code.There is
alleges any defect or the lack of a reason to believe that, had the

57
provisions of the extrajudicial commits the fraud or
agreement been explained to her in misrepresentation, such contract
the Pilipino language, she would not may all the more be annulled due to
have consented to the significant substantial mistake.
and unreasonable diminution of her
In Remalante v. Tibe, the
rights.
Supreme Court ruled that
Atty. Edgardo C. Tagle, the misrepresentation to an illiterate
officer who notarized the woman who did not know how to
extrajudicial settlement did not state read and write, nor understand
that he explained the contents to all English, is fraudulent. Thus, the
the parties concerned. The records deed of sale was considered vitiated
or the subject document for that with substantial error and fraud. x x
matter, do not reflect that he x
explained the contents of the
xxx xxx xxx
document to appellant Concepcion
nor to the other parties in a Evidently, the applicable
language or dialect known to all of prescriptive period to institute the
them. Significantly, the appellants action to annul the deed of
even denied their presence during extrajudicial settlement was four (4)
the notarization of the document. years counted from the discovery of
fraud as held in the case of Gerona
Therefore, the presumption
v. De Guzman. 10 The records
of mistake under Article 1332 is
show that appellants' complaint was
controlling, having remained
filed on 17 August 1998 or twelve
unrebutted by appellees. The
(12) years from the execution of the
evidence proving that the document
deed. However, as appellants are
was not fully explained to appellant
deemed to have obtained
Concepcion in a language known to
constructive notice or the fraud upon
her, given her low educational
the publication of the same in a
attainment, remained uncontradicted
newspaper on June 5, 10 and 27,
by appellees x x x the consent of
1995, this Court rules that the
petitioner was invalidated by a
present action has not prescribed.
substantial mistake or error,
rendering the agreement voidable. Based on the foregoing, the
The deed of extrajudicial settlement trial court erred in ruling as it did.
between appellants and appellees
WHEREFORE, premises
should therefore he annulled and set
considered, the appealed Decision
aside on the ground of mistake.
dated 1 June 2010 of the Regional
In Rural Bank of Caloocan, Trial Court (RTC), Branch 75, San
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Mateo, Rizal is REVERSED. The
Supreme Court ruled that a contract extrajudicial settlement of the estate
may be annulled on the ground of of Felix Cruz is hereby ANNULLED
vitiated consent, even if the act and SET ASIDE.
complained of is committed by a
SO ORDERED. 11 (Other
third party without the connivance or
citations omitted)
complicity of one of the contracting
parties. It found that a substantial Petitioners filed their Motion for
mistake arose from the employment Reconsideration, which was denied via the second
of fraud or misrepresentation. The assailed January 29, 2014 Resolution. Hence, the
plaintiff in that case was a 70-year instant Petition.
old unschooled and unlettered
woman who signed an unauthorized In a November 9, 2015 Resolution, 12 this
loan obtained by a third party on her Court resolved to give due course to the Petition.
behalf. The Court annulled the
contract due to a substantial mistake
which invalidated her Issues
consent. ATICcS
By the same reasoning, if it Petitioners claim that the CA erred in ruling
is one of the contracting parties who that the respondents' cause of action for annulment
58
has not prescribed, and that it ignored The Court denies the Petition.
contemporaneous and subsequent acts of
The present action involves a situation
respondents indicating the absence of fraud or
where one heir was able — through the expedient of
vitiation of consent in the execution of the deed of
an extrajudicial settlement that was written in a
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Felix Cruz.
language that is not understood by one of her co-
Petitioners' Arguments heirs — to secure a share in the estate of her
parents that was greater than that of her siblings, in
In their Petition and Reply 13 seeking violation of the principle in succession that heirs
reversal of the assailed CA dispositions, petitioners should inherit in equal shares.
essentially insist that respondents' cause of action
Thus, Antonia — represented in this case by
for annulment has prescribed, since they filed Civil
her surviving heirs — received two lots as against
Case No. 1380-98 SM only in 1998, or 12 years after
her siblings, including respondent Concepcion, who
the execution of the deed of extrajudicial settlement
respectively received only one lot each in the subject
of estate on July 31, 1986; that pursuant to Article
940-square-meter property. This she was able to
1144 of the Civil Code, 14 a cause of action based
achieve through the subject 1986 deed of
upon a written contract — such as the subject deed
extrajudicial settlement — which was written in
of extrajudicial settlement — must be brought within
English, a language that was not known to and
10 years from the execution thereof; that even
understood by Concepcion given that she finished
assuming that the four-year prescriptive period
only Grade 3 elementary education. With the help of
based on fraud applies as the CA ruled,
Amparo, Antonia was able to secure Concepcion's
respondents' cause of action already prescribed, as
consent and signature without the benefit of
the case was filed only in 1998, while the supposed
explaining the contents of the subject deed of
fraud may be said to have been discovered in 1986,
extrajudicial settlement. For this reason, Concepcion
when they learned of the survey being conducted on
did not have adequate knowledge of the contents
the subject property; that respondents' actions belied
and ramifications of the subject deed of extrajudicial
their claim, in that they did not object when
settlement; she was left unaware of the sharing
petitioners built their home on the lots allotted to
arrangement contained therein, and realized it only
them and never registered any objection even during
when Antonia attempted to subdivide the subject
family gatherings and occasions; that the subject
property in 1998, and the plan of subdivision survey
deed of extrajudicial settlement — being a notarized
was shown to Concepcion — which revealed that
document — enjoys the presumption of regularity
Antonia obtained two lots. Consequently,
and integrity, and may only be set aside by clear and
Concepcion filed Civil Case No. 1380-98 SM on
convincing evidence of irregularity; that it is a matter
August 17, 1998.
of judicial notice that a pre-war third-grader has the
education of a high school student; and that the In short, this is a simple case of exclusion in
findings of the trial court must be given weight and legal succession, where co-heirs were effectively
respect. deprived of their rightful share to the estate of their
parents — who died without a will — by virtue of a
Respondents' Arguments
defective deed of extrajudicial settlement or partition
which granted a bigger share to one of the heirs and
In their Comment 15 seeking denial of the was prepared in such a way that the other heirs
Petition, respondents reiterate the correctness of the would be effectively deprived of discovering and
CA's assailed Decision; that the deed of extrajudicial knowing its contents.
settlement, being written in English, was calculated
to defraud Concepcion — who could not read nor Under the law, "[t]he children of the
write in said language; that owing to the fact that she deceased shall always inherit from him in their own
trusted petitioners, who were her sisters, she was right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares." 16 In
cajoled into signing the deed without knowing its this case, two of Concepcion's co-heirs renounced
contents; that the deed was notarized in the absence their shares in the subject property; their shares
of most of the parties thereto; that the prescriptive therefore accrued to the remaining co-heirs, in equal
period to be applied is not the 10-year period under shares as well. 17
Article 1144, but the four-year period as held by the
In Bautista v. Bautista, 18 it was held that —
CA, to be computed from the discovery of the fraud
— since respondents discovered the fraud only in As gathered from the
1998; and that the factual issues raised by above-quoted portion of its decision,
petitioners have been passed upon by the CA, and the Court of Appeals applied the
are thus not reviewable at this stage. prescriptive periods for annulment
on the ground of fraud and for
reconveyance of property under a
Our Ruling constructive trust. TIADCc
59
 The extra-judicial partition agreement between
executed by Teofilos co-heirs was heirs. — x x x
invalid, however. So Segura v.
The fact of
Segura 19 instructs:
the extrajudicial
x x x The settlement or
partition in the administration shall
present case was be published in a
invalid because it newspaper of
excluded six of the general circulation
nine heirs who were in the manner
entitled to equal provided in the next
shares in the succeeding section;
partitioned property. but no extrajudicial
Under the rule, 'no settlement shall be
extra-judicial binding upon any
settlement shall be person who has not
binding upon any participated therein
person who has not or had no notice
participated therein thereof. x x x
or had no notice
The effect of excluding the
thereof.' As the
heirs in the settlement of estate was
partition was a total
further elucidated in Segura v.
nullity and did not
Segura, thus:
affect the excluded
heirs, it was not It is clear
correct for the trial that Section 1 of
court to hold that Rule 74 does not
their right to apply to the partition
challenge the in question which
partition had was null and void as
prescribed after two far as the plaintiffs
years. x x x were concerned.
The rule covers only
The deed of extra-judicial
valid partitions. The
partition in the case at bar being
partition in the
invalid, the action to have it annulled
present case was
does not prescribe.
invalid because it
The above pronouncement was reiterated excluded six of the
in Neri v. Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy, 20 where the nine heirs who were
Court ruled: entitled to equal
shares in the
Hence, in the execution of
partitioned property.
the Extra-Judicial Settlement of the
Under the rule 'no
Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale in
extrajudicial
favor of spouses Uy, all the heirs of
settlement shall be
Anunciacion should have
binding upon any
participated. Considering that
person who has not
Eutropia and Victoria were
participated therein
admittedly excluded and that then
or had no notice
minors Rosa and Douglas were not
thereof.' As the
properly represented therein, the
partition was a total
settlement was not valid and binding
nullity and did not
upon them and consequently, a total
affect the excluded
nullity.
heirs, it was not
Section 1, Rule 74 of the correct for the trial
Rules of Court provides: court to hold that
their right to
SECTION challenge the
1. Extrajudicial partition had
settlement by
60
 prescribed after two Sale in favor of
years from its spouses Uy, all the
execution. . . heirs of Anunciacion
should have
However, while the
participated.
settlement of the estate is null and
Considering that
void, the subsequent sale of the
Eutropia and
subject properties made by Enrique
Victoria were
and his children, Napoleon, Alicia
admittedly excluded
and Visminda, in favor of the
and that then
respondents is valid but only with
minors Rosa and
respect to their proportionate shares
Douglas were not
therein. It cannot be denied that
properly
these heirs have acquired their
represented therein,
respective shares in the properties
the settlement was
of Anunciacion from the moment of
not valid and
her death and that, as owners
binding upon them
thereof, they can very well sell their
and consequently, a
undivided share in the estate.
total nullity.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
On the issue of prescription,
The effect
the Court agrees with petitioners
of excluding the
that the present action has not
heirs in the
prescribed in so far as it seeks to
settlement of estate
annul the extrajudicial settlement of
was further
the estate. Contrary to the ruling of
elucidated
the CA, the prescriptive period of 2
in Segura v.
years provided in Section 1 Rule 74
Segura, thus:
of the Rules of Court reckoned from
the execution of the extrajudicial It is
settlement finds no application to clear that
petitioners Eutropia, Victoria and Section 1 of
Douglas, who were deprived of their Rule 74
lawful participation in the subject does not
estate. Besides, an 'action or apply to the
defense for the declaration of the partition in
inexistence of a contract does not question
prescribe' in accordance with Article which was
1410 of the Civil Code.(Citations null and
omitted) void as far
as the
Then again, in The Roman Catholic Bishop
plaintiffs
of Tuguegarao v. Prudencio, 21 the above
were
pronouncements were echoed, thus:
concerned.
Considering that The rule
respondents-appellees have neither covers only
knowledge nor participation in valid
the Extra-Judicial Partition, the partitions.
same is a total nullity. It is not The
binding upon them. Thus, in Neri v. partition in
Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy, which the present
involves facts analogous to the case was
present case, we ruled that: invalid
because it
[I]n the excluded
execution of the six of the
Extra-Judicial nine heirs
Settlement of the who were
Estate with entitled to
Absolute Deed of
61
 equal With the foregoing disposition, the other
shares in issues raised by the petitioners are deemed
the resolved.
partitioned
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The
property.
subject July 31, 1986 Extrajudicial Settlement of
Under the
Estate is hereby DECLARED NULL AND VOID, and
rule 'no
thus ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Costs against
extrajudicial
the petitioners.
settlement
shall be SO ORDERED.
binding
||| (Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. 211153, [February 28, 2018])
upon any
person who
has not
participated
therein or
had no
notice
thereof.' As
the partition
was a total
nullity and
did not
affect the
excluded
heirs, it was
not correct
for the trial
court to
hold that
their right to
challenge
the partition
had
prescribed
after two
years from
its
execution. x
x x
(Emphasis
supplied;
citations
omitted)
Thus, while the CA was correct in ruling in
favor of Concepcion and setting aside the subject
deed of extrajudicial settlement, it erred in
appreciating and ruling that the case involved fraud
— thus applying the four-year prescriptive period —
when it should have simply held that the action for
the declaration of nullity of the defective deed of
extrajudicial settlement does not prescribe, under
the circumstances, given that the same was a total
nullity. Clearly, the issue of literacy is relevant to the
extent that Concepcion was effectively deprived of
her true inheritance, and not so much that she was
defrauded. AIDSTE

62
11. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF During the marriage of Felipe and Elena,
TUGUEGARAO V. FLORENTINA PRUDENCIO, ET. they acquired a 13.0476 hectares (or 130,476 sq.
AL., GR187942, 9/7/2016 m.) parcel of land located at Sitio Abbot, Barrio
Imurung, Baggao, Cagayan (Cagayan lot), covered
[G.R. No. 187942. September 7, 2016.] by Original Certificate of Title No. 1343. 6 When
Elena died, Felipe and their children became co-
owners of the property.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP
OF Felipe then died intestate during his second
TUGUEGARAO, petitioner, vs. FLOR marriage. Upon his death, Teodora, Prudencio, Jr.
ENTINA PRUDENCIO, Now and Leonora executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial
Deceased, Substituted by Her Partition of the Estate of the late Felipe with Waiver
Heirs, Namely: Exequiel, Lorenzo, of Rights in favor of Teodora (Extra-Judicial
Primitivo, Marcelino, Juliana, Partition). While the Extra-Judicial Partition
Alfredo and Rosario, All Surnamed acknowledged that the Cagayan lot was acquired
Domingo; AVELINA PRUDENCIO, during the marriage of Felipe and Elena, it stated
Assisted by Her Husband that Felipe and Elena did not have any children who
Victoriano Dimaya; ERNESTO could inherit the property; hence, Teodora and her
PENALBER * and RODRIGO children with Felipe are the only living heirs by
TALANG; SPOUSES ISIDRO operation of law. 7 The Extra-Judicial Partition also
CEPEDA and SALVACION DIVINI, provided that Prudencio, Jr. and Leonora waived
Now Deceased, Substituted by Her their rights over the Cagayan lot in favor of their
Heirs, Namely: Marcial, Pedro and mother Teodora. 8 It was published in the Daily
Lina, All Surnamed Mirror on October 22 and 29, 1969 and November 5,
Cepeda, respondents. 1969. 9 Accordingly, title to the Cagayan lot was
transferred to Teodora's name under TCT No.
14306. 10
On May 16, 1972, Teodora sold the
DECISION Cagayan lot to respondents Spouses Isidro Cepeda
and Salvacion Divini (Spouses Cepeda). TCT No.
14306 was therefore cancelled, and TCT No.
JARDELEZA, J p: 184375 was issued in favor of Spouses Cepeda. 11

Assailed in this Petition for Review On August 25, 1972, Spouses Cepeda sold
on Certiorari 1 is the October 21, 2008 the Cagayan lot to petitioner for
Decision 2 and May 11, 2009 Resolution 3 of the P16,500.00. 12 Thereafter, petitioner was issued
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 77100. TCT No. T-20084. 13
The CA affirmed with modification the ruling of the On September 15, 1972, respondents-
Regional Trial Court-Branch 4 of Tuguegarao City appellees filed a Complaint for Partition with
(RTC) declaring as null and void the sale to Reconveyance 14 against petitioner, Spouses
petitioner of 96,926 square meters (sq. m.) of a lot Cepeda and Teodora, Prudencio, Jr. and Leonora
located in Baggao, Cagayan covered by Transfer before the RTC. They alleged that they are the
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 14306 and ordering children and grandchildren 15 of Felipe by his first
petitioner to reconvey the property to Florentina marriage. They asserted that upon the death of
Prudencio, substituted by her heirs, namely: Elena, they became the owners of Elena's conjugal
Exequiel, Lorenzo, Primitivo, Marcelino, Juliana, share on the Cagayan lot, while the other undivided
Alfredo and Rosario, all surnamed Domingo; Avelina half remained with Felipe. 16 Upon the death of
Prudencio, assisted by her husband Victoriano Felipe, respondents-appellees then became owners
Dimaya; Ernesto Penalber and Rodrigo Talang as well of Felipe's conjugal share in the property,
(respondents-appellees). 4 together with Teodora, Prudencio, Jr. and Leonora.
Facts The Cagayan lot should, therefore, be distributed as
follows: ETHIDa
Felipe Prudencio (Felipe) married twice
during his lifetime. With his first wife, Elena Antonio Florentina Prudencio - 2.5628 HECTARES;
(Elena), he begot five (5) children, namely: Avelina Prudencio - 2.5628 HECTARES;
Valentina, Eusebia, Paula, Florentina and Avelina. 2.5628 HECTARES;
Ernesto [Penalber] -
With his second wife, Teodora Abad (Teodora), he and
had two (2) children namely: Felipe Prudencio, Jr. Rodrigo Talang - 2.5628 HECTARES;
(Prudencio, Jr.) and Leonora. 5 [Total: 10.2512 hectares]
Teodora Abad Vda. De- .9319 HECTARE;

63
Prudencio 2. Declaring plaintiffs as
Leonora Prudencio - .9219 HECTARE; and owners pro indiviso of the undivided
Felipe Prudencio, Jr. - .9319 HECTARE; portion of 99,924.6 sq. meters of the
[Total: 2.7857 hectares] 17 land in suit;
Respondents-appellees posited that they 3. That the Sale with
were fraudulently deprived of their rightful shares in respect to the 99,924.6 sq. meters
the estate of Felipe and Elena when the Extra- conveyed by Teodora Abad to
Judicial Partition declared Teodora as defendants Isidro Cepeda and
the sole owner of the Cagayan lot. 18 Thus, they Salvacion Divini and later to the
prayed that they be declared the owners pro Roman Catholic Bishop of
indiviso of the undivided portion of 10.2512 hectares Tuguegarao is declared null and
of the Cagayan lot, and that this portion be void;
reconveyed to them. They also sought payment of
4. Ordering defendant
moral and exemplary damages and attorney's
Roman Catholic Bishop of
fees. 19
Tuguegarao to reconvey to plaintiffs
Petitioner filed an Answer with Cross said portion; and
Claim. 20 It countered that Spouses Cepeda were in
5. No pronouncement as to
possession of the Cagayan lot at the time they
costs.
offered it for sale. It denied knowledge of the
existence of any defect over Spouses Cepeda's SO ORDERED. 28
title. 21 Petitioner stated that in fact, Atty. Pedro R.
The RTC held that it was impossible for
Perez Jr. (petitioner's lawyer), verified the title and
Teodora and her children to not know that Felipe
ownership of Spouses Cepeda before it purchased
had children/heirs by his first marriage. It observed
the Cagayan lot. 22 Thus, it averred that it was an
that the real property taxes on the Cagayan lot, from
innocent purchaser for value. Nevertheless,
1963 to 1968, were actually paid by respondent-
petitioner insisted that Spouses Cepeda should be
appellee Ernesto Penalber, the grandson of Felipe
held liable for the value of the 10.2562 hectares of
by her daughter Valentina. 29 Therefore, the
the Cagayan lot plus interest and damages, or for
execution of the Extra-Judicial Partition was done in
the rescission of the sale with reimbursement of the
bad faith. In excluding the children of Felipe with
purchase price plus interest and damages, 23 in
Elena, the partition is invalid and not binding upon
case the claim for reconveyance of respondents-
them. 30 cSEDTC
appellees is successful. It contended that the Deed
of Sale between petitioner and Spouses Cepeda The RTC therefore ruled that Teodora can
expressly stated that the latter shall answer for any only sell 33,550 sq. m. of the Cagayan lot to
claim of any other possible heir who might be Spouses Cepeda. In turn, Spouses Cepeda can only
deprived of their lawful participation in the estate of sell that much to petitioner, for a person cannot give
the original registered owner. 24 what he does not own. 31 Hence, the sale of the
Cagayan lot to Spouses Cepeda and subsequently
Spouses Cepeda maintained that their title
to petitioner is valid only as to the 33,550 sq. m.
over the Cagayan lot was clean and that they had no
share of Teodora. The sale of the remaining
knowledge that other persons had interest on it
99,924.6 sq. m., which properly belongs to the
because Teodora's title over the property was
respondents-appellees, was void. Petitioner was
clean. 25 They asserted that like petitioner, they
ordered to reconvey 99,924.6 sq. m. of the Cagayan
were purchasers for value and in good faith.
lot to respondents-appellees. 32
Therefore, petitioner has no cause of action against
them. 26 Both petitioner and respondents-appellees
appealed to the CA. However, respondents-
RTC Ruling
appellees' appeal was dismissed outright for failure
In its Decision 27 dated August 15, 2002, to file an appellant's brief. 33
the RTC ruled in favor of respondents-appellees, the
CA Ruling
decretal portion of which reads:
The CA found that the sole issue is whether
In view of the above
petitioner is a buyer in good faith and for value. In its
consideration, DECISION is hereby
Decision dated October 21, 2008, the CA resolved
rendered:
the issue in the negative.
1. Declaring the Deed of
The CA noted that petitioner has the burden
Extra Judicial Partition of the Estate
of proving that it was a purchaser in good faith,
of Felipe Prudencio with Waiver of
which it failed to discharge. While petitioner's lawyer
Rights as null and void;
investigated the title and ownership of Spouses
64
Cepeda and the previous owners, he did not look lot to Teodora so that she had the right to sell the
beyond what was declared in the documents and entire lot?
failed to determine if there are other
We answer in the negative. Articles 979, 980
heirs. 34 Spouses Cepeda were also not in
and 981 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Civil
possession of the Cagayan lot at the time of sale,
Code) state that all the children of the deceased
which should have alerted petitioner to inquire
shall inherit from him and by implication should
further. 35 The CA held that the fact of fraud on the
participate in the settlement of his/her estate, to wit:
part of Teodora and her children was admitted by
petitioner in its petition, particularly, in its third Art. 979. Legitimate children
assignment of error. 36 and their descendants succeed the
parents and other ascendants,
Thus, the CA affirmed with modification the
without distinction as to sex or age,
ruling of the RTC. It declared that petitioner shall
and even if they should come from
retain ownership of only 33,550 sq. m. of the
different marriages.
Cagayan lot, which is the area equivalent to
Teodora's share. The remaining 96,926 sq. m. (as An adopted child succeeds
modified by the CA from the RTC's previous ruling of to the property of the adopting
99,924.6 sq. m.) should be reconveyed to parents in the same manner as a
respondents-appellees. 37 legitimate child.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which Art. 980. The children of the
was denied; hence, this petition 38 which raises the deceased shall always inherit from
sole issue of whether the action for partition with him in their own right, dividing the
reconveyance filed by respondents-appellees inheritance in equal shares.
against petitioner should prosper.
Art. 981. Should children of
Our Ruling the deceased and descendants of
other children who are dead,
We deny the petition.
survive, the former shall inherit in
This is a case of exclusion of the rightful their own right, and the latter by right
heirs in the partition of the estate of the deceased, of representation. SDAaTC
followed by the sale of their shares to third persons
Thus, the children of Felipe in his two (2)
who claim good faith. Both petitioner and Spouses
marriages should be included in the execution of the
Cepeda consistently contend that they were not
Extra-Judicial Partition. In this case, it is undisputed
aware that any person, other than the seller, has
that respondents-appellees were children of Felipe
interest over the Cagayan lot. Thus, they are
by his first marriage. Teodora, Prudencio, Jr. and
innocent purchasers for value.
Leonora did not deny respondents-appellees'
The preliminary question then is whether the relation with Felipe. Despite this, however, Teodora,
excluded heirs could recover what is rightfully theirs Prudencio, Jr. and Leonora declared in the Extra-
from persons who are innocent purchasers for Judicial Partition that they are the only living heirs of
value. Segura v. Segura 39 teaches that the answer Felipe by operation of law. They claimed that Felipe
would not depend on the good faith or bad faith of had no child with his first wife Elena, in effect
the purchaser, but rather on the fact of ownership, depriving respondents-appellees of their rightful
for no one can give what he does not have — nemo shares in the estate of their parents. They arrogated
dat quod non habet. 40 Thus, the good faith or bad upon themselves not only the share of Felipe in the
faith of petitioner is immaterial in resolving the Cagayan lot but also the shares belonging to
present petition. A person can only sell what he respondents-appellees.
owns or is authorized to sell; the buyer can as a In this regard, we cite Rule 74, Section 1 of
consequence acquire no more than what the seller the Rules of Court which reads:
can legally transfer. 41
Sec. 1. Extrajudicial
The Extra-Judicial Partition is settlement by agreement between
Not Binding on Respondents- heirs. — If the decedent left no will
Appellees and no debts and the heirs are all
Petitioner's title over the Cagayan lot was of age, or the minors are
derived from the title of Spouses Cepeda, who in represented by their judicial or
turn obtained their title from Teodora. Teodora, legal representatives duly
meanwhile, gained title over the entire Cagayan lot authorized for the purpose, the
on the basis of the Extra-Judicial Partition dated parties may, without securing
October 20, 1969. 42 The question therefore is, did letters of administration, divide
that partition validly pass ownership of the Cagayan the estate among themselves as
65
 they see fit by means of a public admittedly excluded and that then
instrument filed in the office of minors Rosa and Douglas were
the register of deeds, and should not properly represented therein,
they disagree, they may do so in the settlement was not valid and
an ordinary action of partition. If binding upon them and
there is only one heir, he may consequently, a total nullity.
adjudicate to himself the entire
xxx xxx xxx
estate by means of an affidavit filed
in the office of the register of deeds. The effect of excluding the
The parties to an extrajudicial heirs in the settlement of estate was
settlement, whether by public further elucidated in Segura v.
instrument or by stipulation in a Segura, thus:
pending action for partition, or the
It is clear
sole heir who adjudicates the entire
that Section 1 of
estate to himself by means of an
Rule 74 does not
affidavit shall file, simultaneously
apply to the partition
with and as a condition precedent to
in question which
the filing of the public instrument, or
was null and void as
stipulation in the action for partition,
far as the plaintiffs
or of the affidavit in the office of the
were concerned.
register of deeds, a bond with the
The rule covers only
said register of deeds, in an amount
valid partitions. The
equivalent to the value of the
partition in the
personal property involved as
present case was
certified to under oath by the parties
invalid because it
concerned and conditioned upon the
excluded six of the
payment of any just claim that may
nine heirs who
be filed under section 4 of this rule.
were entitled to
It shall be presumed that the
equal shares in
decedent left no debts if no creditor
the partitioned
files a petition for letters of
property. Under
administration within two (2) years
the rule "no
after the death of the decedent.
extrajudicial
The fact of the settlement shall be
extrajudicial settlement or binding upon any
administration shall be published person who has
in a newspaper of general not participated
circulation in the manner therein or had no
provided in the next succeeding notice thereof." As
section; but no extrajudicial the partition was a
settlement shall be binding upon total nullity and
any person who has not did not affect the
participated therein or had no excluded heirs, it
notice thereof. (Emphasis was not correct for
supplied.) the trial court to
hold that their
Considering that respondents-appellees
right to challenge
have neither knowledge nor participation in the
the partition had
Extra-Judicial Partition, the same is a total nullity. It
prescribed after
is not binding upon them. Thus, in Neri v. Heirs of
two years from its
Hadji Yusop Uy, 43 which involves facts analogous
execution . . . . 44 (
to the present case, we ruled that:
Citations omitted,
[I]n the execution of the emphasis supplied.)
Extra Judicial Settlement of the
Petitioner, however, submits that the Extra-
Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale in
Judicial Partition is not void because it does not fall
favor of spouses Uy, all the heirs of
within any of the inexistent and void contracts under
Anunciacion should have
Article 1409 45 of the Civil Code.46
participated. Considering that
Eutropia and Victoria were

66
 Petitioner is not correct. In Constantino v. aware of, and did not give their consent to such sale.
Heirs of Pedro Constantino, Jr., 47 we declared two Likewise, when Spouses Cepeda sold the entire
(2) deeds of extrajudicial settlements as void and Cagayan lot to petitioner, the spouses only
inexistent for having a purpose or object which is transferred to petitioner Teodora's pro indiviso share.
contrary to law. The intention of the signatories in Our ruling in Vda. De Figuracion v. Figuracion-
both deeds is to exclude their co-heirs of their Gerilla 51 is on point:
rightful share in the estate of the
Thus, when Carolina sold
deceased. 48 Similarly, in the present case,
the entire Lot No. 707 on December
Teodora, Prudencio, Jr. and Leonora acted in bad
11, 1962 to Hilaria and Felipa
faith when they declared that they are the only living
without the consent of her co-owner
heirs of Felipe, despite knowing that Felipe had
Agripina, the disposition affected
children in his first marriage. It is well-settled that a
only Carolina's pro indiviso share,
deed of extrajudicial partition executed without
and the vendees, Hilaria and Felipa,
including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge
acquired only what corresponds to
of and consent to the same, is fraudulent and
Carolina's share. A co-owner is
vicious. 49
entitled to sell his undivided
Thus, the Extra-Judicial Partition is void share; hence, a sale of the entire
under Article 1409 (1) or those whose cause, object property by one co-owner without
or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, the consent of the other co-
public order or public policy. As a consequence, it owners is not null and void and
has no force and effect from the beginning, as if it only the rights of the
had never been entered into and it cannot be co-owner/seller are transferred,
validated either by time or ratification. 50 thereby making the buyer a co-
owner of the property.
The Sale to Spouses Cepeda
and Petitioner is Limited to Accordingly, the deed of
Teodora's Share sale executed by Carolina in favor
of Hilaria and Felipa was a valid
The nullity of the Extra-Judicial Partition
conveyance but only insofar as
does not automatically result in the nullity of the sale
the share of Carolina in the co-
between (1) Teodora and Spouses Cepeda, and that
ownership is concerned. As
of (2) Spouses Cepeda and petitioner.
Carolina's successors-in-interest to
Respondents-appellees and Teodora (as the the property, Hilaria and Felipa
surviving heirs of Felipe) are co-owners of the could not acquire any superior right
Cagayan lot. As such, they have full ownership and in the property than what Carolina is
rights over their pro indiviso shares. Article 493 of entitled to or could transfer or
the Civil Code defines the rights of a co-owner, to alienate after partition.
wit:
In a contract of sale of co-
Art. 493. Each co-owner owned property, what the vendee
shall have the full ownership of his obtains by virtue of such a sale
part and of the fruits and benefits are the same rights as the vendor
pertaining thereto, and he may had as co-owner, and the vendee
therefore alienate, assign or merely steps into the shoes of the
mortgage it, and even substitute vendor as co-owner. 52 (Emphasis
another person in its enjoyment, supplied.) EcTCAD
except when personal rights are
Simply put, the sale of the Cagayan lot to
involved. But the effect of the
Spouses Cepeda, then to petitioner is valid insofar
alienation or the mortgage, with
as the share of Teodora is concerned. In effect,
respect to the co-owners, shall be
petitioner merely holds the share of respondents-
limited to the portion which may be
appellees under an implied constructive
allotted to him in the division upon
trust. 53 This is true though the TCTs covering the
the termination of the co-ownership.
entire Cagayan lot were issued in the name of
Teodora may therefore sell her undivided Teodora, Spouses Cepeda and then petitioner, by
interest in the Cagayan lot, and such disposition virtue of the subsequent sales. The issuance or a
shall affect only her pro indiviso share. When she certificate of title could not vest upon them
sold the entire property to Spouses Cepeda, the ownership of the entire property; neither could it
latter legally and validly purchased only the part validate their purchase of the same which is null and
belonging to Teodora. The sale did not include the void to the extent of the shares of the respondents-
shares of respondents-appellees, who were not appellees. 54 Registration does not vest title, for it is
67
merely the evidence of such title. Our land For better understanding, the Cagayan lot
registration laws do not give the holder any better shall be divided as follows:
title than what he actually has. 55
From From
Total
As it stands, petitioner which merely steps Elena's Felipe's
into the shoes of Teodora, and respondents- Estate Estate
appellees are now the pro indiviso co-owners of the Florentina 13,047.6 sq.5,591.83 sq.18,639.43 sq.
property. Prudencio m. m. m.
Avelina 13,047.6 sq.5,591.83 sq.18,639.43 sq.
Partition of the Cagayan Lot
Prudencio m. m. m.
Notably, each co-owner has the right to ask Ernesto 13,047.6 sq.5,591.83 sq.18,639.43 sq.
for the partition of the property owned in common as Penalber m. m. m.
no co-owner may be compelled to stay in a co- Rodrigo 13,047.6 sq.5,591.83 sq.18,639.43 sq.
ownership indefinitely. 56 Here, respondents- Talang m. m. m.
appellees prayed for the partition and reconveyance
of the Cagayan lot and their rightful shares, Combined
respectively. Total:
74,557.72 sq.
Before the partition of the Cagayan lot m.
among the surviving heirs, the conjugal share of the
surviving spouse shall first be deducted from the 44,734.63 44,734.63 sq.
conjugal property of the spouses because the same Teodora Abad 0
sq. m. m.
does not form part of the estate of the deceased (surviving
spouse. Under Article 175 57 of the Civil Code, the spouse)
conjugal partnership is dissolved upon the death of Leonora 5,591.83 sq.5,591.83 sq.
either spouse. It shall then be subject to inventory 0
Prudencio m. m.
and liquidation, the net remainder of which shall be Felipe 5,591.83 sq.5,591.83 sq.
divided equally between the husband and the 0
Prudencio, Jr. m. m.
wife. 58
Combined
Here, the Cagayan lot is the conjugal
Total:
property of Elena and Felipe. Upon the former's
55,918.29 sq.
death, one-half (1/2) of the Cagayan lot
m.
automatically goes to the latter as his conjugal
share. The remaining one-half (1/2) forms part of the  
estate of Elena and shall be divided equally between
Petitioner, whose title over the Cagayan lot
Felipe and his four (4) surviving children with Elena,
is ultimately derived from Teodora, is therefore
in conformity with Article 996 59 of the Civil
entitled only to 55,918.29 sq. m. Thus, petitioner
Code.Thus, Felipe shall receive one-half (1/2) or
should return to respondents-appellees
65,238 sq. m. of the Cagayan lot as his conjugal
the 74,557.72 sq. m. of the Cagayan lot which
share and one-fifth (1/5) or 13,047.6 sq. m. of the
corresponds to respondents-appellees' rightful share
same lot as heir of Elena. Simply put, Felipe is
as heirs of Felipe and Elena.
entitled to a total of 78,285.6 sq. m. of the Cagayan
lot. Meanwhile, respondents-appellees shall receive Meanwhile, this Court is not unmindful of the
one-fifth (1/5) or 13,047.6 sq. m. each. unfairness resulting from the above order as
petitioner stands to lose 74,557.72 sq. m. of the
When Felipe obtained a second marriage,
Cagayan lot, which it purchased in fee simple from
his 78,285.6 sq. m. share was brought into his
Spouses Cepeda. In the interest of fairness, justice
marriage with Teodora, such that the same formed
and equity, we grant petitioner's cross-claim against
part of their conjugal partnership. Upon Felipe's
Spouses Cepeda. Spouses Cepeda are directed to
death, Teodora became entitled to one-half (1/2) of
return to petitioner the corresponding value paid for
the 78,285.6 sq. m. or 39,142.8 sq. m. The
the area of 74,557.72 sq. m. with legal interest. 60
remaining half will compose the estate of Felipe,
which will be divided equally among Teodora, In fine, the RTC and the CA did not err when
Prudencio Jr., Leonora and respondents-appellees they held that respondents-appellees are entitled to
— each of them receiving one-seventh (1/7) of recover their rightful shares in the Cagayan lot.
39,142.8 sq. m. Teodora then shall receive However, the reconveyance should conform to the
44,734.63 sq. m. This is further increased by the distribution of shares set forth above.
waiver of Prudencio, Jr. and Leonora of their rights
over the estate of Felipe, such that the aggregate WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for
share of Teodora will now be equivalent lack of merit. The October 21, 2008 Decision and
to 55,918.29 sq. m. May 11, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
68
 CA-G.R. CV No. 77100 are hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION that:
(1) Petitioner is ORDERED to reconvey to
respondents-appellees an area of
74,557.72 square meters as
their pro indiviso share in the
Cagayan lot; while petitioner shall
retain the remaining area of
55,918.29 square meters.
(2) Spouses Cepeda are ORDERED to
return to petitioner the amount paid
corresponding to the 74,557.72
square meters share of
respondents-appellees, with legal
interest at the rate of 12% per
annum to be computed from the
time petitioner filed its Answer with
Cross-Claim dated October 14,
1972 with the RTC until June 30,
2013. 61 Thereafter, the legal
interest from July 1, 2013 until
finality of decision shall be at 6% per
annum. 62 After this decision
becomes final and executory, the
applicable rate shall be 6% per
annum until its full
satisfaction. HSAcaE
(3) The case is REMANDED to the Regional
Trial Court of Tuguegarao City,
Branch 4, for partition of the
Cagayan lot in accordance with this
Decision.
Velasco, Jr., Peralta and Perez, JJ., concur.
||| (Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuguegarao v. Prudencio,
G.R. No. 187942, [September 7, 2016], 794 PHIL 462-
480)

69
 complaint challenged the lawfulness and validity of
the meeting and election conducted by the group of
12. ESTATE OF DR. JOVENCIO ORTANEZ, Jose C. Lee (respondents) on 15 March 2006.
REPRESENTED BY DIVINA ORTANEZ ENDERES, ET. During the assailed meeting, Jose C. Lee (Lee),
AL. V. JOSE LEE, ET. AL., GR 184251, 3/9/16 Angel Ong, Benjamin C. Lee, Carmelita Tan, Ma.
Paz C. Lee, John Oliver Pascual, Edwin C. Lee,
[G.R. No. 184251. March 9, 2016.] Conrado C. Cruz, Jr., Brenda Ortañez, Julie Ann
Parado and Gary Jason Santos were elected as
members of the Board of Directors of Philinterlife.
ESTATE OF DR. JUVENCIO P.
ORTAÑEZ, represented by DIVINA Petitioners claimed that before the contested
ORTAÑEZ-ENDERES, LIGAYA election, they formally informed the respondents that
NOVICIO, and CESAR without the participation of the Estate, no quorum
ORTAÑEZ, petitioners, vs. JOSE C. would be constituted in the scheduled annual
LEE, BENJAMIN C. LEE, stockholders' meeting.
CARMENCITA TAN, ANGEL ONG, Petitioners averred that in spite of their
MA. PAZ CASAL-LEE, JOHN formal announcement and notice that they were not
OLIVER PASCUAL, CONRADO participating in the session, the respondents
CRUZ, JR., BRENDA ORTAÑEZ, continued, in bad faith, with the illegal meeting.
and JULIE ANN PARADO and JOHN Further, respondents allegedly elected themselves
DOES, respondents. as directors of Philinterlife and proceeded to elect
their own set of officers.
Petitioners, who insisted that they
DECISION represented at least 51% of the outstanding capital
stock of 5,000 shares of Philinterlife, conducted on
the same day and in the same venue but in a
different room, their own annual stockholders'
PEREZ, J p: meeting and proceeded to elect their own set of
Before us for resolution is the appeal filed by directors, to wit: Rafael Ortañez, Divina Ortañez-
the Estate of Dr. Juvencio P. Ortañez (Dr. Ortañez), Enderes, Ligaya Novicio, Cesar Ortañez and
Ligaya Novicio, Divina Ortañez-Enderes, and Cesar Leopoldo Tomas.
Ortañez (petitioners) seeking to nullify the 28 Petitioners complained that despite being
February 2008 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals the true and lawful directors, they were prevented by
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 97829. The CA affirmed the respondents to enter into the office premises of
17 January 2007 Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Philinterlife's corporate records and assets.
Court (RTC), Branch 90, Quezon City, which
dismissed the petitioners' complaint for failure to In their backgrounder, petitioners narrated
present the required preponderance of evidence to that on 15 April 1989 and 30 October 1991, the
substantiate the material allegations embodied 2,029 shares of stock of the Estate were sold to the
therein. group of Lee, through an entity called Filipino Loan
Assistance Group (FLAG). By reason of said sale,
Culled from the records are the following respondents took control of the management of the
antecedent facts: corporation. In the course of their management, and
On 6 July 1956, Dr. Ortañez organized and by voting on the shares that they had illegally
founded the Philippine International Life Insurance acquired, respondents increased the authorized
Company, Inc. (Philinterlife). At the time of its capital stock of Philinterlife to 5,000 shares.
incorporation, Dr. Ortañez owned ninety percent The aforementioned sale of the shares of
(90%) of the subscribed capital stock of Philinterlife. stock of the Estate was challenged by some of the
Upon his death on 21 July 1980, Dr. Ortañez heirs (some of the petitioners) before the estate
left behind an estate consisting of, among others, court, which in due course, issued an order declaring
2,029 shares of stock in Philinterlife, then the sale null and void ab initio. The case eventually
representing at least 50.725% of the outstanding reached this Court and was docketed as G.R. No.
capital stock of Philinterlife which was at 4,000 146006.
shares valued at P4,000,000.00. In the Court's decision in G.R. No.
On 30 March 2006, petitioners filed a 146006, 3 it affirmed the lower court's ruling that
Complaint for Election Contest before the RTC of indeed the sale was null and void. Furthermore, the
Quezon City. The case was docketed as Civil Case Court ruled that all increases in the authorized
No. Q-06-143 and raffled to Branch 90. The capital stock of Philinterlife made and effected by the

70
respondents using the shares that they illegally clarified by RTC, Branch 93 in Civil Case No. 05-115
acquired were null and void as well. Petitioners in favor of the respondents, when a writ of
submit that as a necessary and logical preliminary injunction was issued against petitioners
consequence, majority ownership over Philinterlife and; 3) petitioners are not even stockholders on the
was restored to the Estate, which was the controlling stock books of Philinterlife even if the basis for filing
stockholder prior to the unlawful sale of the shares. of the complaint in Civil Case No. Q-06-143 is the
5,000 shares existing on the books of Philinterlife as
Petitioners pointed out that in the Court's
of 1982.
Resolutions dated 22 April 2005 and 22 August 2005
in G.R. No. 146006, it reiterated its 23 February Hence, this Petition for Review
2004 ruling that all increases in the capital stock of on Certiorari 6 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
the corporation effected by Lee and his group were
Petitioners essentially allege that the CA
null and void. CAIHTE
erred when:
They further submitted that the exercise of
(1) it refused to acknowledge the final
pre-emptive right of the Estate to acquire 51% of the
and executory decision of this
additional 1,000 paid up shares of stock, raising the
Court in G.R. No. 146006,
total outstanding capital stock to 5,000 shares, was
declaring that petitioner Estate
recognized by the RTC of Quezon City, which acted
is the owner of majority of the
as an Intestate Court in Sp. Proc. No. Q-30884,
capital stock of Philinterlife;
through its Order dated 6 July 2000 and was upheld
by this Court in its decision in G.R. No. 146006. (2) it ruled that the election of
respondents as directors of
On the basis and strength of the aforesaid Philinterlife was in accordance
decision and resolutions of this Court in G.R. No. with the provisions of
146006, petitioners argued that the valid and lawful the Corporation Code, despite
capital stock of Philinterlife remained at 5,000 shares the categorical
of stock. From this 5,000 shares, petitioner Estate pronouncement of this Court
owns 2,029 shares, plus 510 shares which also in G.R. No. 146006 that it is
legally belongs to it by reason of its pre-emptive the Estate, and not the
right, or a total of 2,539 shares. These figures respondents, which own the
indicate that they still represent majority of the controlling interest in
outstanding capital stock of Philinterlife. Philinterlife. 7
Petitioners concluded that notwithstanding For reasons to be discussed hereunder, we
the decision and subsequent resolutions of this rule in favor of respondents.
Court in G.R. No. 146006, respondents unlawfully
held on to the management and control of We note respondents' submission that in
Philinterlife and maliciously resisted and prevented March 1983, Jose S. Ortañez sold certain shares of
all their efforts to regain control and management stocks which he personally and exclusively owned to
thereof. Lee and eighteen (18) other stockholders including
Divina Ortañez-Enderes and her family. These
Respondents, for their part, categorically shares of stock are separate and distinct from the
denied the material allegations of the complaint and 2,029 shares of stock belonging to the Estate. The
raised the defense that the stockholders' meeting respondents direct the Court's attention to the
they conducted on 15 March 2006 was valid as it General Information Sheets of Philinterlife from 31
was allegedly attended by stockholders representing March 1983 to 16 April 1988, where it is shown that
98.76% of the 50,000 shares representing the even before the alleged illegal sales on 15 April
authorized and issued capital stock of Philinterlife. 1980 and 30 October 1996, Lee and the other
In an Judgment 4 dated 17 January 2007, respondents were stockholders and directors of
the RTC dismissed the complaint filed by petitioners Philinterlife. 8
on the ground that the latter did not present the Respondents also claim that as of 27 July
required preponderance of evidence to substantiate 1987, the authorized capital stock of Philinterlife was
their claim that they were the owners of at least 51% increased to P10,000,000.00 in compliance with
of the outstanding capital stock of Philinterlife. Ministry Order 2-84; that as of 31 January 1989, the
Dissatisfied with the RTC ruling, petitioners authorized capital stock was still at P10,000,000.00
elevated the matter to the CA. and the Estate's 2,025 shares have minority interest
of 20.29% only; that as of 20 February 2003, 90% of
On 28 February 2008, 5 the CA dismissed the company's controlling interest approved the
the petition on the grounds that: 1) petitioners are increase of capital stock to P50,000,000.00 as
guilty of forum shopping; 2) the decision of this Court mandated by law. Moreover, respondents allege that
in G.R. No. 146006 was already interpreted and
71
 the 15 March 2006 annual stockholders' meeting the company's outstanding capital
presided over by Lee was attended by stockholders stock at that time.
representing 98.76% of the 50,000 authorized and
On April 15, 1989 [and
fully subscribed capital stock.
October 30, 1991], the decedent's
We agree with the lower courts that the wife, Juliana Ortañez [and Special
petitioners failed to present credible and convincing Administrator Jose Ortañez], sold
evidence that Philinterlife's outstanding capital stock [their] shares with right to
during the 15 March 2006 annual stockholders' repurchase in favor of Filipino Loan
meeting was 5,000 and that they own more than Assistance Group (FLAG),
2,550 shares or 51% thereof. The unrebutted represented by its president, Jose
presumption is that respondents, as defendants C. Lee. [Both of them] failed to
below, were duly elected as directors-officers of repurchase . . ., thus ownership
Philinterlife. DETACa thereof was consolidated by FLAG
in its name.
G.R. No. 146006
It appears that on [March 4,
We refer to the details of the antecedent
1982] (during the pendency of the
facts of the case as culled from this Court's decision
intestate proceedings). Juliana
promulgated on 23 February 2004, is as follows:
Ortañez and her two children,
  Rafael and Jose Ortañez, entered
into a memorandum of agreement
Dr. Juvencio P. Ortañez for the extrajudicial settlement of the
incorporated the Philippine estate of Dr. Juvencio Ortañez,
International Life Insurance partitioning the estate (including
Company, Inc. on July 6, 1956. At Philinterlife shares of stock) among
the time of the company's themselves. . . .
incorporation, Dr. Ortañez owned
ninety (90%) of the subscribed xxx xxx xxx
capital stock. On November 8, 1995, the
On July 21, 1980, Dr. intestate court . . . appointed Ma.
Ortañez died. He left behind a wife Divina Ortañez-Enderes as special
(Juliana Salgado Ortañez), three administratrix of the Philinterlife
legitimate children (Rafael, Jose and shares of stock.
Antonio Ortañez) and five . . . Special Administratrix
illegitimate children by Ligaya Enderes filed urgent motions to
Novicio (herein private respondent declare (1) void ab initio the
Ma. Divina Ortañez-Enderes and memorandum of agreement dated
her siblings Jose, Romeo, Enrico March 4, 1982; [(2)] . . . to declare
Manuel and Cesar, all surnamed the partial nullity of the extrajudicial
Ortañez) settlement of the decedent's estate;
On September 24, 1980, (3) to declare void ab initio the
Rafael Ortañez filed before the deeds of sale of Philinterlife shares
Court of First Instance of Rizal, of stock . . . .
Quezon City a petition for letters of xxx xxx xxx
administration of the intestate estate
of Dr. Ortañez, docketed as SP. On August 11, 1997, the
Proc. Q-30884. Private respondent intestate court . . . [ruled that] "a
Ma. Divina Ortañez-Enderes and sale of a property of the estate
her siblings filed an opposition to the without an Order of the probate
petition for letters of administration. . court is void and passes no title to
.. the purchaser. Since the sales in
question were entered into by
On March 10, 1982, Rafael Juliana S. Ortañez and Jose S.
and Jose Ortañez were appointed Ortañez in their personal capacity
joint special administrators of their without prior approval of the Court,
father's estate. . . . [The] inventory of the same is not binding upon the
the estate included, . . . among other Estate."
properties, 2,029 shares of stock in
Philinterlife representing 50.725% of On August 29, 1997, the
intestate court . . . [granted] the
72
 motion [for the annulment of the] Parenthetically, any question on the increase of
March 4, 1982 memorandum of stocks made before the illegal sales should not be
agreement or extrajudicial partition raised in the instant election contest case but should
of [the] estate. [The Memorandum of be the subject of a separate proceeding.
Agreement was declared partially
Petitioners argue that G.R. No. 146006
void ab initio insofar as the
serves as their "best evidence of the fact that
transfer/waiver/renunciation of the
petitioners have always been the true and lawful
Philinterlife shares of stock was
owners of at least 51% of Philinterlife." 11 We iterate
concerned. This was eventually
that what we declared void in G.R. No. 146006 was
brought up to the Supreme Court
the 4 March 1982 Memorandum of Agreement and
but to no avail. The decision
consequently, the subsequent sales and pursuant
attained finality and was
thereto, the increased authorized capital stocks
subsequently recorded in the book
approved on the vote of petitioners' non-existent
of entries of judgment.] 9
shares. Petitioners seek to over-stretch this Court's
xxx xxx xxx ruling in G.R. No. 146006 by arguing
that all increases of capital stock were declared void.
We observed in the aforesaid decision that
At this juncture, we emphasize once more, that the
Juliana Ortañez (Juliana) and her three sons
increases in the capital stock made before the illegal
invalidly entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
sales were not declared void by G.R. No. 146006. In
extra-judicially partitioning the intestate estate
fact, these previous increases, as discussed below,
among themselves, despite their knowledge that
were mandated by law.
there were other heirs or claimants to the Estate and
before the final settlement of the Estate by the We give more weight to the Capital
intestate court. Since the appropriation of the estate Structure of Philinterlife as of 15 December
properties was invalid, the subsequent sale thereof 1980, 12 which shows that the Estate owned 2,029
by Juliana and Lee to a third party (FLAG), without shares of the 5,000 total outstanding shares or
court approval, was likewise void. 40.58%. It is evident, therefore, that as of 15
December 1980, the Estate no longer owned
It goes without saying that the increase in
50.725% of the outstanding capital stock of
Philinterlife's authorized capital stock, approved on
Philinterlife. In view of the increase of the capital
the vote of petitioners' non-existent shareholdings
structure of Philinterlife from 4,000 shares to 5,000
was likewise void ab initio.
shares in 15 December 1980, the percentage of
Over-stretching of G.R. No. 146006 shareholdings owned by the Estate was naturally
reduced from 50.73% (2,029 shares out of 4,000
Petitioners anchor their claim on this Court's shares) to 40.58% (2,029 shares out of 5,000
ruling in G.R. No. 146006 to support their argument shares). In other words, the Estate's 2,029 shares
that they own 51% of the outstanding capital stock of became a minority shareholder of Philinterlife from
Philinterlife. They insist that pursuant 15 December 1980 up to 24 March 1983. The
thereto, all increases in the authorized capital stock Capital Structure proffered by the respondents
of Philinterlife are null and void; thus, it logically negated the claim of petitioners that they
follows that the authorized capital stock of have always been the true and lawful owners of at
Philinterlife remains at 5,000 (capital stock at the least 51% of Philinterlife. aDSIHc
time of death of Dr. Ortañez) to date and that the
2,029 shares owned by petitioners, coupled with the It should be noted that the last valid
shares owned by other petitioners in their individual uncontested outstanding capital stock before the
capacity, constitute more than 51% of the issued illegal sales was 10,000 shares. Prior to the sales
capital stock. made to FLAG on 15 April 1989 and 30 October
1991, the outstanding capital stock as reflected in
Upon a closer analysis of our ruling in G.R. the General Information Sheet dated 16 April
No. 146006, however, we note that only the 4 March 1988, 13 is 10,000 shares at P10,000,000.00 and
1982 memorandum of agreement was declared void not 5,000 shares as advanced by the petitioners.
and as a consequence thereto, the subsequent sale Therefore, the total number of outstanding shares
to FLAG was likewise declared void. With regard to during the 15 March 2006 annual stockholders'
the increases in Philinterlife's capital stock, we only meeting was definitely not 5,000 shares as
declared void those increases approved on the petitioners posit. Even before the illegal sale, the
vote of petitioners' non-existent Estate only owned 2,029 shares, not even close to
shareholdings. 10 In other words, only those majority of the total outstanding capital stock of
increases subsequent to the illegal sales of shares 10,000 shares.
of stock are considered void. The validity of the
increases of stock before 1989 (from 1980 to 1988) Moreover, this Court recognizes the
has never been questioned before any court. significant weight of the Certification issued by the
73
 Insurance Commission. 14 The document certified Percentage 50.72%
that Department Order No. 62-87 (5 June 1987), as
issued by the Insurance Commission, required 2. Increase in Paid-Up
domestic insurance companies to increase their Capital
minimum paid-up capital to P10,000,000.00 by the 15 December 1980
end of 31 December 1987.
Paid-up Capital 5,000 Php5,000,000.00
We quote with approval the following Holdings of Juvencio 2,029 Php2,029,000.00
pertinent disquisitions of the RTC, Branch 93, Ortañez
Quezon City in Civil Case No. 05-115: 15 Percentage 40.58%
From July 21, 1980 up to
April 15, 1989, there were changes 3. Increase in Paid-Up
in the capital structure of Capital
Philinterlife. There were increases in 24 September 1984
the capital stock [pursuant to Paid-Up Capital 6,000 Php6,000,000.00
law]. 16 These changes took place Holdings of Juvencio 2,029 Php2,029,000.00
before the sale of the 2,029 shares Ortañez
of the Estate . . . in 1989 and 1991 Percentage 33.81%
to FLAG. Prior to 1995, Rafael and
4. Increase in Paid Up
Jose Ortañez were the joint special
Capital
administrators of the Estate . . . and
26 January 1987
their administration covered the
2,029 shares. . . . Under the joint Paid-Up Capital 8,000 Php8,000,000.00
special administration . . ., the 2,029 Holdings of Juvencio 2,029 Php2,029,000.00
shares remained static. How and Ortañez
why these shares of the Estate Percentage 25.36%
remained unimproved despite the
general increase in capital stock of 5. Increase in Paid-Up
Philinterlife during that time can only Capital
be answered by the joint special 27 July 1987
administrators.
Paid-Up Capital 10,000 Php10,000,000.00
As respondents correctly pointed out, 17 to
Holdings of Juvencio 2,029 Php2,029,000.00
give premium to petitioners' story that the quorum in
Ortañez
the annual stockholders' meeting should be based
Percentage 20.29%
on 5,000 shares is to grossly violate and disregard
corporate acts and powers done by the corporation, 6. Increase in Paid-Up
which were validly voted upon by the stockholders Capital
including the Estate, through its then Special 6 February 2003
Administrators Rafael Ortañez and Jose Ortañez,
from 1983 to 1988. Furthermore, the same increases Paid-Up Capital 20,000 Php20,000,000.00
of capital stock to 10,000 were also voted upon and Holdings of Juvencio 2,029 Php2,029,000.00
approved after due notice to petitioners Divina Ortañez
Ortañez-Enderes, Ligaya Novicio and Cesar Ortañez Percentage 9.85%
who were present/allowed to be present, during the
stockholders' meetings from 1983 to 1988. 7. Increase in Paid-Up
Classified hereunder is a summary of the Capital
developments in the Capital Structure of Philinterlife 20 February 2003
from the time of death of Dr. Ortañez:
Paid-Up Capital 50,000 Php50,000,000.00
  Holdings of Juvencio Php2,029,000.00
Ortañez
No. of Percentage 4.05% 18
Amount
Shares
 
1. At the time of death
From the foregoing facts and based on a
21 July 1980
careful evaluation of the evidence on record, we are
Paid-up Capital 4,000 Php4,000,000.00 of the considered view that petitioners indeed failed
Holdings of Juvencio 2,029 Php2,029,000.00 to present the required preponderance of evidence
Ortañez to prove their allegation in the complaint that they

74
 represented more than 51% of the outstanding
capital stock of Philinterlife during the annual
stockholders' meeting held on 15 March 2006.
Clearly, the core issue to be resolved in the
present case is simply on whether respondents were
validly elected as Board of Directors during the
annual stockholders' meeting of Philinterlife held on
15 March 2006. We agree with the courts below that
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
presumption is that the respondents were duly
elected as directors/officers of Philinterlife during the
aforesaid annual stockholders' meeting. Petitioners
cannot, in the instant election contest case, question
the increases in the capital stocks of the corporation.
Given the ruling of this Court, as provided
above, we find it no longer necessary to rule on the
other matters raised in this case.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing
premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED. ETHI
||| (Estate of Ortañez v. Lee, G.R. No. 184251, [March 9,
2016])

75